secular space in selected postmodern novels - NWU-IR Home

The convergence of sacred and- secular space in selected postmodern novels

S. Romylos

21926115

B.A., H.E.D., B.A. HONS.

Dissertation submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Magister Artium in English at the Potchefstroom

Campus of the North-West University

Supervisor: Prof. A. M. de Lange

MAY 2014

Potchefstroom

i

Abstract

This dissertation focuses on the return and revitalization of traditional Christian themes in

contemporary postmodern novels. It offers an examination of how these themes materialize in

novels written by writers who are not explicitly religious, or in novels which do not have an

overtly religious focus. Some contemporary novels generate a privileged space in which the

return of the religious can take place. The sacred is back, not just as a re-enchantment, but

manifests itself in fundamentally new and productive ways (Ward, 2001:xv). The first matter

under consideration is the fact that the co-existence of belief and unbelief is apparent in all the

novels under discussion. As such, the reader as active participant in the novel is bound to be

affected by these mutually inter-dependent and inextricably inter-connected sides of a coin.

The themes of providence, sacrifice and the miraculous become evident in John Irving‟s A

prayer for Owen Meany while the themes of sin, guilt and redemption feature in Ian McEwan‟s

Atonement. Secondly, the study compares two novels that deal with the same supernatural

phenomena, namely visions, faith healing and stigmata. Jodi Picoult is a non-believer and is

the author of Keeping Faith, while Ron Hansen is a devout Catholic who wrote Mariëtte in

ecstasy. These works, on the one hand, create a space for supernatural phenomena even

though fiction cannot prove the reality of their existence. Postmodern people seem to have a

definite longing for the miraculous and these novels seem to satisfy that yearning. On the other

hand, both novels portray disbelief in the miraculous while subtly allowing room for characters or

readers in a liminal space between belief and disbelief. The theories of Jean François Lyotard

and specifically his notion of “incredulity towards metanarratives” provide a framework to

explore this matter. Lyotard proposes “petit recits” or many small stories instead of the grand

narratives. He contends that there is no objective knowledge and that narrative and scientific

knowledge are subject to legitimization. The Christian story therefore needs no scientific basis

as justification, which means that it is being newly considered after the mistrust created during

the Enlightenment period. Gianteresio Vattimo‟s ideas on the role of religion in contemporary

life and the possible convergences of postmodernity and the Christian faith also come into play.

He advocates weak thought as opposed to strong thought and sees caritas (charity or

neighbourly love) as essential. This concept of weak thought allows for plurality and tolerance.

Vattimo sees Christ‟s kenosis (self-emptying) as essentially linked to a secularization in which

humankind needs to retrace the path to the original Biblical message of love. Emphasis is on a

non-doctrinal, anti-dogmatic spirituality and this manifests in the novels discussed. This study

employs diverse reader-response theories to gauge the reaction of the reader to texts

containing Biblical themes and supernatural phenomena. Stanley Fish‟s interpretive

communities and Wolfgang Iser‟s implied reader are helpful and Michael Edwards‟s pattern of

sin, the fall and redemption is of particular interest to this dissertation. Edwards believes that

most novels, whether written by religious or non-religious writers, follow this pattern. Readers

ii

find themselves either on the side of the believing or unbelieving camp in the novels discussed.

However, many readers may hover in the liminal space between belief and unbelief.

Interpretation depends on many factors that constitute the world view of the reader, hence the

plurality of interpretations.

Databases consulted: EBSCOhost Web; ABES; MLA; Humanities Index; Nexus; Gkpv

Keywords: Fiction, religion, faith, postmodernism, spirituality, A prayer for Owen Meany,

Atonement, Keeping Faith, Mariëtte in ecstasy, John Irving, Ian McEwan, Jodi Picoult and Ron

Hansen, reader.

iii

Opsomming

Hierdie skripsie fokus op die terugkeer en hernuwing van Christelike temas in kontemporêre

postmoderne werk. Die studie het ten doel om te bepaal hoe hierdie temas realiseer in tekste

wat geskryf is deur skrywers wat nie eksplisiet gelowig is nie of in tekste wat nie ŉ openlike

godsdienstige fokus het nie. Die kontemporêre roman skep ŉ bevoorregte ruimte waarin die

terugkeer na die godsdienstige kan plaasvind. Die gewyde keer nie net as ŉ herbetowering

terug nie, maar manifesteer fundamenteel in nuwe en produktiewe wyses. Die gelyktydige

verskyning van geloof en ongeloof is duidelik in al die tekste wat bespreek word en die leser as

aktiewe deelnemer in die roman is genoop om beinvloed te word deur die wedersydse

interafhanklike en onlosmaaklik verbonde kante van ŉ munt. Die temas van voorsienigheid,

opoffering en die wonderbaarlike kom na vore in John Irving se A prayer for Owen Meany terwyl

die temas van sonde, skuld en bevryding voorkom in Ian McEwan se Atonement. Die studie

vergelyk twee werke wat handel oor dieselfde bonatuurlike verskynsels naamlik visioene,

geloofgenesings en die wondertekens van Christus. Jodi Picoult is ŉ ongelowige en die skrywer

van Keeping Faith, terwyl Ron Hansen ŉ toegewyde Katoliek is wat Mariëtte in ecstasy geskryf

het. Albei werke skep ruimte vir bonatuurlike verskynsels, alhoewel fiksie nie die bestaan

daarvan kan bewys nie. Die postmoderne mens blyk ŉ defnitiewe hunkering na die

wonderbaarlike te hê en hierdie werke bevredig dit. Albei werke beskryf gelyktydig die ongeloof

in die bonatuurlike terwyl dit subtiel ruimte laat vir diegene wat hulle in ŉ tussenruimte tussen

geloof en ongeloof bevind. Die teorieë van Jean François Lyotard en spesifiek sy begrip van

ongeloof teenoor metaverhale verskaf die raamwerk hiervoor. Lyotard stel petit recits of

verskeie kleiner stories in plaas van die meesterverhale voor. Hy beweer dat daar geen

objektiewe kennis is nie en dat narratiewe en wetenskaplike kennis beide aan geldigverklaring

onderwerp is. Die Christelike storie het daarom nie ŉ wetenskaplike basis nodig as verdediging

nie en word daarom weer opnuut aanvaar na die wantroue wat gespruit het uit die Verligting.

Gianteresio Vattimo se idees oor die rol van godsdiens in die kontemporêre lewe en die

moontlike saamloop van postmodernisme en die Christelike geloof is ook van belang. Hy

bepleit swak denke in teenstelling met sterk denke en sien caritas (menseliefde) as noodsaaklik.

Die konsep van swak denke erken pluralisme en verdraagsaamheid. Christus se self-

venedering word gesien as wesentlik gekoppel aan sekularisme waarin die mens nodig het om

die pad na die oorspronklike boodskap van liefde weer op te spoor. Die klem val vir Vattimo op

ŉ nie-doktrinêre, anti-dogmatiese spiritualiteit en dit manifesteer in die werke onder bespreking.

Die studie maak gebruik van verskillende resepsieteorieë om die reaksie van die lesers op

tekste met Bybelse temas en bonatuurlike fenomene te peil. Stanley Fish se

gespreksgemeenskappe en Wolfgang Iser se implesiete leser is van waarde, en Michael

Edwards se patroon van sonde, val en verlossing is van besondere belang vir hierdie studie.

Edwards is van mening dat meeste romans, of dit nou geskryf is deur gelowige skrywers al dan

iv

nie, hierdie patroon volg. Lesers bevind hulle óf aan die kant van die gelowiges óf aan die kant

van die ongelowiges in die bespreekte romans. Baie lesers weifel egter in die liminale spasie

tussen geloof en ongeloof. Interpretasie berus op baie faktore wat die wêreldbeskouing van die

leser vorm, vandaar die talryke interpretasies.

Databasisse geraadpleeg: EBSCOhost Web; ABES; MLA; Humanities Index; Nexus, Gkpv

Sleutelwoorde: Fiksie, godsdiens, geloof, postmodernisme, spiritualiteit, A prayer for Owen

Meany, Atonement, Keeping Faith, Mariëtte in ecstasy, John Irving, Ian McEwan, Jodi Picoult

en Ron Hansen, leser.

v

Acknowledgements

My gratitude to:

- The North-West University for the necessary infrastructure for enabling me to complete this dissertation.

- The North-West University‟s Research Unit for Language and Literature in the SA context for financial assistance.

- The staff of The Ferdinand Postma Library at the Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University for their friendly, prompt and professional assistance. Special gratitude to Hester Lombard, Isabel Blom, Surita Lessing and Erika Rood.

My gratitude to my supervisor, Professor A.M. de Lange for his invaluable advice, guidance,

inspiration and understanding during the course of my studies. It was indeed a privilege to have

had him as my supervisor.

I wish to express my gratitude to my mother, Elizabeth, for her constant moral support and

encouragement, and to my late father, Prof. Fanus Postma, for the example he set as a person

who improved his mind all his life.

My daughters Liz and Christine for always showing an interest in my work, believing in me and

taking the burden of many household tasks on them because of a busy mother. My son,

Konstantinos, who did not understand much of what I was doing, but still gave hugs at the right

times.

To my husband Nick, for his love, constant motivation and patience during this time.

vi

Table of Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... i

Opsomming ............................................................................................................................ iii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. v

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Contextualization and problem statement ............................................................... 1

1.2 Aims............................................................................................................................ 9

1.3 Thesis statement ....................................................................................................... 9

1.4 Method ........................................................................................................................ 9

Chapter 2: Theoretical framework ........................................................................................ 13

2.1 Jean François Lyotard............................................................................................. 13

2.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 13

2.1.2 The metanarrative...................................................................................................... 15

2.1.3 Scientific and narrative knowledge ............................................................................. 15

2.1.4 Grand narratives of legitimation ................................................................................. 17

2.1.5 Lyotard‟s solution: paralogy/dissension ...................................................................... 18

2.1.6 Is Christianity a metanarrative?.................................................................................. 19

2.1.7 Criticism of Lyotard‟s concept of metanarratives ........................................................ 22

2.2 Gianni Vattimo ......................................................................................................... 24

2.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 24

2.2.2 Nietzsche and Heidegger........................................................................................... 24

2.2.3 Vattimo‟s concept of weak thought ............................................................................ 27

2.2.4 Caritas (charity) and kenosis (self-emptying) ............................................................. 28

vii

2.2.5 Reasons for the return to religion ............................................................................... 28

2.3 Reader-response theory .......................................................................................... 30

2.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 30

2.3.2 Roland Barthes – The Death of the author ................................................................. 31

2.3.3 Wolfgang Iser, Stanley Fish and interpretive communities ......................................... 32

2.3.4 Leland Ryken ............................................................................................................. 34

2.3.5 The search for truth ................................................................................................... 35

Chapter 3: Providence, Sacrifice and the Miraculous ......................................................... 37

A Prayer for Owen Meany – John Irving .............................................................................. 37

3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 37

3.2 Providence ............................................................................................................... 41

3.3 Sacrifice ................................................................................................................... 49

3.4 The Miraculous ........................................................................................................ 58

Chapter 4: Sin, Guilt and Redemption ................................................................................. 65

Atonement – Ian McEwan ..................................................................................................... 65

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 65

4.2 Sin ............................................................................................................................. 67

4.2.1 Briony‟s inability to see other people as real as she is ............................................... 68

4.3 Misinterpretation...................................................................................................... 71

4.3.1 World War Two as macrocosm .................................................................................. 75

4.4 Guilt .......................................................................................................................... 77

4.4.1 The concept of kenosis manifested through Briony .................................................... 79

4.5 Redemption .............................................................................................................. 83

viii

4.5.1 Religious versus secular confession .......................................................................... 84

Chapter 5: Visions, Faith Healing and Stigmata .................................................................. 88

Mariëtte in Ecstasy – Ron Hansen ....................................................................................... 88

Keeping Faith – Jodi Picoult ................................................................................................. 88

5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 88

5.2 Contextualization ..................................................................................................... 91

5.3 Belief versus unbelief .............................................................................................. 94

5.4 The introduction of supernatural phenomena – visions, faith healing and

stigmata .................................................................................................................. 105

Chapter 6: Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 114

Reference list ....................................................................................................................... 122

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1

1.1 Contextualization and problem statement

This dissertation focuses on the return and revitalization of traditional Christian themes in

selected postmodern novels.1 It offers an examination of how these themes materialise in

novels written by writers who are not explicitly religious or in novels which do not have an

overtly religious focus. This dissertation will furthermore argue that the four selected texts

namely, A prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving, Atonement by Ian McEwan, Keeping Faith by

Jodi Picoult and Mariëtte in ecstasy by Ron Hansen generate a privileged space in which the

return of the religious can take place. Selection of texts is based on a number of factors, such

as the extent to which the discussed themes manifest in the novels, the manifestation of

supernatural phenomena in the texts, explicit or implied comments by the novelists themselves

regarding religious themes, and personal preferences of the author of this dissertation. The

selected texts also encompass and welcome paradoxes and tensions between the sacred and

secular. Chapter five of this dissertation is an attempt to compare the manifestation of

supernatural phenomena in two very different novels, the former qualifying as popular fiction,

and the latter as serious fiction. The respective writers also differ significantly regarding their

stance on faith – Ron Hansen is a devout Catholic, and Jodi Picoult a sceptic.

The Bible and its content features strongly in many contemporary novels. Many writers have

commented on this phenomenon. Henn asserts that “the Bible is burned into the timber of

English. It has provided literature with proverbs, and parables, and themes, sacred and

profane, for epic, satire, tragedy, farce” (cited in Jasper, 2007:18). Ryken (1995:148) calls this

Christian element in literature “a direct indebtedness of literature to the Bible” and continues to

say that writers have not only raided the Bible for titles of works and names of characters, but

also for subject matter. There are numerous Biblical allusions in contemporary literature and

according to Ryken the reader‟s knowledge of the Bible is necessary to interpret a work. It

definitely seems as if a culturally informed reader is familiar with the contents of the Bible.

Related to Biblical allusions are Biblical archetypes and Ryken mentions as example Dickens‟

Pip in Great Expectations. Pip‟s life follows the moral journey of the prodigal son in the Bible.

Northrop Frye seems to agree with Ryken that one would not know what is going on in English

literature without knowledge of the Bible (cited in Ryken, 1995:149). It is a point of contention

what the persuasive effect of such content is on the reader, especially an atheist or agnostic

1 The themes discussed in this dissertation do not only apply to Christianity, but are also concerns of many other religious groups. Only stigmata (dealt with in chapter 5) are an exclusively Christian phenomenon.

2

reader, although the intention of most writers is not persuasion in whichever direction of

thought.

Some writers touch on the persuasive qualities of Biblical themes. Hence, Martel, in his

author‟s note to Life of Pi, relates of a stranger in a coffee shop who told him about a story “that

will make you believe in God” (Martel, 2002:xii). This sounds far-fetched, but this study

contends that fiction that incorporates Biblical content might at the least provoke questions of a

spiritual nature or a spiritual quest. One has to keep in mind though that religion in postmodern

culture is not restricted to literature. Richard Dawkins‟s The God delusion (2006) and Alain de

Botton Religion for atheists: a non-believers guide to the uses of religion (2013), to name but

two, galvanized the debate about religion in our era. Richard Dawkins (2006:5) claims in his

book, The God delusion that: “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be

atheists when they put it down.” He does, however, admit that such a claim is “presumptuous

optimism” as many years of childhood indoctrination will prevent some from even opening his

book.

The title of this dissertation refers to a convergence between the sacred and secular. This study

will attempt to show just how this convergence takes place in the selected texts. Salman

Rushdie (1991:376), in his book Imaginary homelands: essays and criticisms, advocates a co-

existence of these seemingly incompatible poles:

If one is to attempt honestly to describe reality as it is experienced by religious people for whom God is no symbol but an everyday fact, then the conventions of what is called realism are quite inadequate. The rationalism of that form comes to seem like a judgement upon, an invalidation of, the religious faith of the characters being described. A form must be created which allows the miraculous and the mundane to co-exist at the same level – as some order of event. I found this essential even though I am not, myself, a religious man.

Rushdie seems to advocate this convergence of sacred and secular and sees it as necessary to

portray the contemporary scene effectively. His notion points to a tolerance and inclusion of

differing views. The question is, however, whether realism can still today accommodate the

supernatural. The novels discussed in this dissertation all follow the realist form and although

themes are still fairly easily incorporated, the supernatural poses greater difficulty.

Hass (2007:842-843) makes reference to a change in status concerning the sacred and the

secular. He maintains that religion has lost “its supremacy as moral authority”, but also that

secularity “has lost its position as impenetrable positivist bastion against what it saw as the

thinly protected myths of religion and spirituality”. This change in the status of sacred and

secular implies among other things that the individual can experience spirituality without the

necessity of religious institutions. The church, during the Enlightenment, took control of

individuals by guarding sacred texts and ways of worshipping and doctrine. Cupitt (1998:3)

3

mentions that the individual‟s religious life had to be lived in “subjection to a large and

bureaucratic salvation-machine, and personal experience of the highest religious happiness

was deferred to the heavenly world after death”. Hass also touches on the fact that religion or

spirituality is penetrating the secular once again after the modernist period, which considered

any form of supernaturalism to be superstition. Although Hass does not see this relationship

between sacred and secular as a give and take, a compromise from both sides, it does seem as

if there is a mutual interdependence between these erstwhile antinomies. Sacred and secular

are bound together and this inseparability leads to a convergence in literature. Contemporary

writers find ways to keep the delicate balance between these two extremes.

The sacred implies that there is truth out there, but postmodernism is a philosophy that affirms

no absolute truth, especially regarding matters such as religion and spirituality. The aim of this

dissertation is not to make general statements concerning postmodernism, as it is not a uniform

school. Some postmodernists are more accommodating of faith than others. Even the later

Derrida seems to be moving towards a more accommodating position, though in his

characteristically playful and multiplex way, while Ricoeur makes faith central, and the later

Baudrillard adopts a metaphysical stance at times. The search for truth opens up debates that

“can only be described as theological” (Bradley & Tate, 2010:3). Lourdunathan (2008:380)

argues that postmodernism has its roots “in the intellectual tradition of modernism which

markedly denies the idea of any supreme Being/God as the source of guidance of the universe”.

He also seems to advocate a peaceful co-existence of sacred and secular or as he calls it

atheism and Christian theism. It is his belief that these two mutual boundaries should be

conscious of and appreciate each other. Lourdunathan furthermore concurs that these belief-

systems are culturally determined and our claims to objectivity must be rejected, which would

open up a “profound space” for interaction. He speaks of binaries, e.g. God is or is not, and

contends that to consider x holy, the construct requires y, which will be unholiness. The one

cannot be valued without the other as a standard to gauge from. This means, for example, that

sinfulness and holiness are two sides of the same coin which is marketed culturally

(Lourdunathan, 2008:381-384). The practical implication in the selected texts is then the co-

existence of these two binary views – belief and unbelief and all the liminal spaces in between.

One may then ask what the common ground is that is shared by religion and literature. This

answer seems to lie in a search for truth. The postmodern truth is not absolute in that it allows a

plurality of voices to give expression to multiple truths. The sacred and the secular are thus

defined in terms of each other in that they pose the same questions. These questions are

religious in nature because they address issues of ontological concern, i.e.

What is the meaning of life?

4

What is the human being's role in the universe?

What comes after death: the face of God or nothingness?

The American philosopher Alvin Plantinga (1932 - ) points out that this struggle between two

opposing spiritual forces goes back to Augustine who spoke of the City of God (Civitas Dei) and

the City of the world (Civitas Mundi) (Plantinga, 2005). At the time Plantinga wrote, the

modernists were of the opinion that they had effectively got rid of “an infantile superstition”

(Glicksberg, 1960:212). Following that, the appearance of religious themes and questions

regarding the existence of God are what constitutes the contemporary scene. Postmodern

people are once again concerned with spiritual issues and want to fill the vacuum that was

created during the Enlightenment period. There is a search for something undefined,

something ineffable, to fill this void and to provide hope. This return of religious themes and the

manifestation of the miraculous in certain contemporary novels are indicative of this search.

Although Plantinga admits that the contemporary western world is “a vast and amorphous affair,

including a variety of people, in an enormous variety of places, with enormously different cultural

backgrounds and traditions,” he mentions three main contestants in the contemporary western

intellectual world. The first is Christianity or Judeo-Christian theism. The second is called

perennial naturalism which contends there is no God and human beings are unimportant parts

of a huge cosmic machine. The third is called creative anti-realism which sees the human as

responsible for the basic structure of the world (Plantinga, 2005). The consequence with the

second and third theory is that they lead to relativism. Thus, everything is acceptable and there

is no one absolute version of truth. Plantinga laments the fact that such relativistic theories are

enjoying preference at many universities and in intellectual discourse. Vattimo touches on this

notion of relativism as well, as shown later on in this dissertation. What places Plantinga‟s

suggested pragmatism to Christians well within the postmodern spectrum is that Christians

should be aware of these other anti-Christian notions and at the same time be sensitive towards

them. In another article entitled “Advice to Christian philosophers”, he mentions the following

three points of advice: Christians should display in the first instance more autonomy, secondly

more integrity – in the sense of integral wholeness and thirdly, Christian boldness or self-

confidence (Plantinga, 1984). Christians need not be defensive or apologetic, since their truth

is once again valid in a postmodern world.

It would be wise to make a distinction between the key concepts involved viz. faith, belief and

religion. The distinctions made by Anita Gandolfo (2007:x) are useful in this regard and she

contends that faith, when used in religious terms, points to the individual's relationship to

Transcendence. This involves the individual in totality and affects the way a person views the

world and others. Religion, however, is related to an institution. “One is a person of faith; one

5

belongs to a religion. An individual can have belief, but when belief is associated with a religion,

it is commonly referred to as doctrine or dogma”. Faith is not necessarily connected to an

institution or set of doctrines and dogma, but refers more to a spirituality within an individual.

Literature does not in essence deal with doctrine or dogma. The contemporary postmodern

novel focuses more on faith and the problematic relationship of humans with transcendence

than with strict adherence to any specific doctrine or dogma. Elizabeth Jay (2007:6) observes

that “these creative revisionings of the grand narratives came at a time when institutional

religious affiliation was markedly in decline and the Christian church, was, as a consequence,

losing its power of a monolithic story of universally applicable truth”. Instead of rigid

metanarratives we have a whole tapestry of different interwoven threads or beliefs. This

pluralism or openness towards more than one story is apparent in Martel‟s novel Life of Pi.

Piscine Moliter Patel, after having experienced the Hindu, Muslim and Christian religions, was

asked to choose between them. He answered: “Bapu Gandhi said, 'All religions are true.' I just

want to love God,” (Martel, 2002:69). lt is exactly this all-is-true concept that Plantinga sees as

relativism. Broadly speaking, the postmodern novel is concerned with a spectrum of belief and

it either provides a space for or serves as a unique vehicle for these various belief systems that

vie to explain our very diverse world. Religion is not just back as a re-enchantment, but

manifests in fundamentally new and productive ways. Graham Ward (2001:xv) qualifies this re-

enchantment as “a return not signalled by theologians but by filmmakers, novelists, poets,

philosophers, political theorists, and cultural analysts”.

Having broadly established the pervasive appearance of the sacred and secular in

contemporary novels, the field of attention must be narrowed to a few novels since it does not

lie within the scope of this dissertation to examine a wide spectrum.

John Irving, in A prayer for Owen Meany, says that the first sentence is such a good one

because, “the whole novel is contained in it” (1989:14). The first sentence, through the voice of

John Wheelwright, reads: “I am doomed to remember a boy with a wrecked voice, or because

he was the smallest person I ever knew, or even because he was the instrument of my mother's

death, but he is the reason I believe in God; I am a Christian because of Owen Meany”

(1989:23). Irving seems to advocate the very real possibility of one person having an influential

effect on the spiritual orientation of another. Tate (2008:86) describes Irving as “not an

avowedly 'religious' novelist” and contends that he “writes without a doctrinal or institutional

agenda”. A prayer for Owen Meany is saturated with Christian themes; this dissertation will

focus on providence, sacrifice, and the miraculous. Owen Meany, after accidentally killing his

best friend's mother with a baseball, feels the need to sacrifice his life as a redemptive act. He

believes he is an instrument in God's hand. To achieve this, he has to heed the divine calling

and transcend this secular life.

6

Ian McEwan is, according to Bradley and Tate (2010:12), “the leading exponent of the New

Atheist novel”. They continue to say that, to “McEwan's eyes, then, the New Atheist novel

represents a (tentative) profession of faith in the secular redemption offered by fiction itself: the

novel represents the only narrative of transcendence in which we can still safely believe”

(Bradley & Tate, 2010:12). Redemption, whether it is called “a secular redemption,” is still

inextricably tied to the Christian doctrine of original sin. According to Benedict (2008:481),

redemption is “a concept associated with monotheistic religions that support the doctrine of a

Redeemer or Messiah […] It is synonymous with salvation and on the basis of the doctrine of

original sin; everyone stands in need of redemption”. Ironically, the title of McEwan‟s novel is

Atonement, which is the central doctrine of Christianity from which all others are derived. The

irony lies in the fact that the title used by McEwan is a concept of great importance to Christians,

while McEwan is an atheist. The doctrine of atonement sets out to explain why the sinless

Jesus willingly submitted to death by crucifixion as God the Son. McEwan, however, strongly

believes in the role of novels in the formation of a sense of morality. In an interview with

Richard Dawkins (2009), McEwan expressed the importance for us as humans to take

responsibility for ourselves and others. The fact that there is no one up there, someone to rely

on, places a strain on us. We need to make the best of our lives, and we do not need a God to

ordain our moral priorities.

The themes of sin, guilt and redemption in Ian McEwan's novel Atonement are central.

Boscaljon (2007:760) contends that literature “not limited to theological assumptions of another

world or an all-powerful creator is able to explore how life on earth may be redeemed and how

humans can mediate their own redemption”. Thus, „secular‟ literatures can be seen as

performing „theological‟ work. Briony Tallis, the precocious 13-year-old with a lively imagination,

witnesses an incident between Cecilia, her older sister, and Robbie, the son of the Tallis family's

charlady. She misinterprets this scene as Robbie‟s overt male sexual exploitation of her sister.

This unconstrained imagination leads her to accuse Robbie falsely of having raped Lola, and

subsequent feelings of guilt over having separated the lovers. Briony spends a lifetime trying to

atone for this crime. She attempts to use fiction to rectify mistakes that fiction, or her lively

imagination, had prompted her to commit. Her re-writing of the novel is an attempt at atoning

for a sin. A question to be examined in this dissertation is whether such atonement is possible.

Whereas the themes of sin, guilt and redemption feature in McEwan‟s Atonement, other

religious content feature in Keeping Faith by Jodi Picoult. Visions, faith healings and stigmata

manifest in this novel and will be discussed. The manifestation of the supernatural in novels

has often been questioned by humankind. It is possible that the inclusion of religious

experience in novels may be regarded as sentimental, or even trite. This is very possible and

there is indeed a fine line that writers need to maintain when incorporating these supernatural

elements in their novels. Pericles Lewis (2010:27) in his book Religious experience and the

7

modernist novel, asks the question: “If the modern age has so comfortably dispensed with the

supernatural, why do we continue to produce so much discourse about the need to abandon it,

from Nietzsche and Freud through the existentialists to the post-structuralist critique of „grand

narratives‟ and the metaphysics of presence”? Thus, the paradox in postmodernism is

highlighted: both the contempt for providence and a longing for the sacred are maintained.

Faith White, in Keeping Faith, is the daughter of a Christian father and a non-practising Jewish

mother. Faith is raised without any religion and this makes the experience recounted in the

novel believable as authentic manifestations of the Divine. After the divorce of her parents,

Faith starts having conversations with her “guard.” A psychologist suggests that Faith might

have misunderstood the name and that her Deity might be God. Faith performs healings and

manifests stigmata, phenomena which are difficult to defend in an era that gives precedence to

the visible. This refutation of miracles because of an absence of proof echoes the classical

argument of David Hume, 18th-century philosopher, essayist and sceptic. Hume (cited in

Thomson et al. 2008:398) said, “A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”

The tension between belief and disbelief is highlighted with the two opposing camps in the

novel: those spiritual seekers trying to get a glimpse of this child prophet and those who are

sceptical, represented by the characters of Ian Fletcher and the Catholic clergy.

Ron Hansen's Mariëtte in ecstasy also deals with supernatural phenomena and Anita Gandolfo

observes that such phenomena are more expected here since the setting of the novel is a

religious order (2007:142). Ron Hansen is a devout Catholic and this study will endeavour to

highlight the different ways in which a non-believing author – Jodi Piccoult – revitalizes and

incorporates Christian elements as compared to a believer. Mariëtte, who dedicates her life to

God as a nun, experiences a series of trances and visions after her sister dies of cancer that

ultimately culminate in stigmata. Her sister Celine is the prioress at the convent. Once again

the rift between belief and disbelief in the authenticity of such manifestations is apparent. The

reader has to decide whether Mariëtte is a modern-day saint or a charlatan manipulating the

impressionable's need to believe in the miraculous.

Many secularists, and atheists for that matter, may regard fiction with a definite Christian slant

as propaganda. However, this is not true of these novels and they would definitely be greatly

reduced in value if that was the case. Tate (2008:91) also argues that [the novel] “is not crudely

designed to elicit a religious response in its reader”. The aim seems to be rather to present or

give a platform to multiple voices without endorsing any one specifically. As in all the novels

discussed in the scope of this dissertation, there is a tension between sacred and secular and

this is where the world view of the reader plays a significant role. Leland Ryken (2000:104)

mentions the differing views of Augustine, who came to believe that literature “infected people

with unwholesome emotions and led them to immoral behaviour” and Sir Philip Sidney who

8

believed that literature moves a reader “to virtuous behaviour”. The conclusion Ryken

(2000:150-151) comes to is that both Christians and non-Christians have a specific world view

that they compare to the views present in fiction. He believes that Christians should not have a

narrow vision and should comprehend and respect views contrary to theirs. Finally, literature is

a catalyst for our interpretation – both about our own world view and the diverse other views

presented in literature. A fundamental question in this dissertation is the significance of this

paradoxical relationship between religion and literature and the effect of such texts on the

reader.

Roland Barthes (1968), in his most celebrated essay, “The Death of The Author” insists that the

reader “had overturned the traditional authority of the author” (cited in Castle, 2007:198). Thus,

the author is not the only authority for interpretation and the reader is free to enter a text from

any direction. There are various theories concerning the role of the reader in contemporary

novels, but the aim of this dissertation is not to discuss them in detail. Lewis (cited in Ryken,

2000:129) asserts:

We demand windows. Literature [...] is a series of windows, even of doors. One of the things we feel after reading a great work is “I have got it out” […] The primary impulse of each is to maintain and aggrandise himself. The secondary impulse is to go out of the self, to correct its provincialism [...] Obviously this process can be described either as an enlargement or as a temporary annihilation of the self […]The man who is contented to be only himself […] is in prison. My own eyes are not enough for me, I will see through those of others.

This does not imply that the contemporary novel is then necessarily a vehicle for conversion

possibilities, but rather a space in which ingrained prejudices could be effaced. Traditional

Christians readily stereotype secularists as nihilists, while atheists stereotype Christians as

fundamentalists. There seems to be a mutual suspicion. The novel form provides a space

where diverse viewpoints can be offered and possible places of convergence can be reached.

Against this background, the main questions guiding this investigation can be formulated as

follows:

1 How are traditional themes, used within a Christian framework, reintroduced, reshaped

and revitalized in selected contemporary novels by writers who do not adhere to a specific

doctrine or institutional agenda?

2 Although fiction cannot prove the reality of supernatural phenomena such as miracles,

visions, faith healing and stigmata, the question at hand is: how and why is a space

created for such phenomena amidst the mundane in selected contemporary novels?

9

3 What is the significance of the paradoxical relationship between religion and the selected

contemporary novels and what is the effect of these mutually inter-dependent and

inextricably inter-connected sides of a coin on the reader?

1.2 Aims

1 To examine the reintroduction, reshaping and revitalization of traditional themes, within a

Christian framework, in selected contemporary novels by writers who do not adhere to a

specific doctrine or institutional agenda.

2 To examine how and why a space is created for supernatural phenomena such as

miracles, visions, faith healing and stigmata in selected novels, even though fiction cannot

prove the reality of such supernatural phenomena amidst the mundane.

3 To examine the significance of the paradoxical relationship between religion and the

selected novels, and the possible effect of these mutually inter-dependent and inextricably

inter-connected sides of a coin on the reader.

1.3 Thesis statement

This dissertation will argue that the four selected novels generate a privileged space in which

the return of the religious can take place. This space, although primarily secular, is filled with

traditional Christian themes and the manifestation of supernatural phenomena, even though

fiction cannot prove the reality of such phenomena. This co-existence between belief and

disbelief is apparent in all novels under discussion and the reader as active participant in the

novel is bound to be affected by these mutually inter-dependent and inextricably inter-

connected sides of a coin. The reader creates his/her own space for interpretation and such

interpretations are subject to the world view of the reader.

1.4 Method

The methods used to analyse texts in this dissertation correspond closely to those of

postmodernism. The theoretical approach is heterogeneous as no single theory is adequate to

cover all the angles that should be examined in this dissertation. The theories of Jean François

Lyotard, specifically his notion of “incredulity towards metanarratives” offers a suitable

framework. He argues that this incredulity “is undoubtedly a product of progress in the

sciences” (Lyotard, 1994:xxiv). He believes that the “grand narratives” dictate an illusion of

totality and absolute truths. He “prefers little narratives which do not attempt to present an

overarching “Truth” but offer a qualified, limited “truth”, and one relative to a particular situation”

10

(Nicol, 2009:12). These little or, as Lyotard calls them, “petite narratives” are stories that allow

for a diversity of opinions. This theory corresponds with that of postmodernism in as far as it is

a philosophy that affirms no absolute truth, especially in matters of religion and spirituality.

During the period before the Enlightenment, the metanarrative of western society was religion,

whereas the metanarrative of the Enlightenment was science. Neither of these metanarratives

was successful in explaining the many mysteries of the universe. Thus, Lyotard contends that

the postmodern “puts forward the unpresentable in presentation itself; that which denies itself

the solace of good forms, the consensus of a taste which would make it possible to share

collectively the nostalgia for the unattainable; that which searches for new presentations, not in

order to enjoy them but in order to impart a stronger sense of the unpresentable” (Lyotard,

1984:18-19). Lyotard in effect says that the mysterious remains and that not everything can be

explained by science. In other words, Biblical content and the supernatural qualify as subject

matter that was negated during the Enlightenment period. Postmodernism is tolerant of an

array of stories, whether they can be legitimated in a scientific way or not.

As this dissertation deals with the two sides of a coin and a both/and spectrum of belief and

disbelief, it is imperative to have different theories that support the former and the latter

respectively. The recent work of well-known Italian philosopher, Gianni Vattimo forms an

underlying ideology for this dissertation. His work centres on the modern-day role of religion

and the possible convergence of the Christian faith and postmodernity. Ironically, he found a

return to the Christian faith constructing a philosophy inspired by Nietzsche and Heidegger, the

fathers of scepticism (Vattimo, 1999:33). His theory of “weak thought” forms the basis of his

philosophy. He defines weak thought as [something] “that abandons its claims to global and

metaphysical visions, but above all a theory of weakening as the constitutive character of Being

in the epoch of the end of metaphysics” (Vattimo, 1999:35). The theory of weak thought refers

to a reconstruction of modernity‟s rational thought and claims to objective truth to a more multi-

faceted interpretation. In other words, weak thought implies the realisation that the world does

not imply an uninterpreted or uncontested reality. This rediscovery of religion entails a

movement away from dogmatics and the claims of certitude and finality. Guarino (2011:23) in

an article entitled “The Return of Religion in Europe: the Postmodern Christianity of Gianni

Vattimo” asserts that, the “return of religion means that it can no longer rely on any strong body

of doctrine, or on any claims to absolute and definitive knowledge”. The solution is not found in

doctrine but in caritas (charity), which comes down to tolerance of plurality. This charity for

Vattimo is rooted in God's kenosis (self-emptying) which is in itself a parable concerned with

giving up power. This is indicative of the notion of postmodernism where there is an emphasis

on “the other”.

The next step is a close reading of the selected texts: A prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving,

Atonement by Ian McEwan, Keeping Faith by Jodi Picoult and Mariëtte in ecstasy by Ron

11

Hansen. The first two novels are representative of the return and revitalization of traditional,

Biblical themes, while a comparative study of the last two novels investigates the manifestation

of miracles, visions, faith healing and stigmata. This discussion incorporates additional

theoretical concepts relevant to the texts in question.

The reader-response theories used to gauge the reaction of the reader to these texts are

diverse. Stanley Fish's theory of interpretive communities in which the reading of a text is

constructed by a culture is useful to this investigation. Fish (1980:171) argues that interpretive

communities share interpretive strategies and these strategies “exist prior to the act of reading

and therefore determine the shape of what is read”. For instance, the Church constitutes an

interpretive community with the Bible as guiding text. Christians can believe in its truth-claim if

they acquire these beliefs through membership of a Christian community. Those who belong to

a different community and who deny the truth-claim of the Bible do so on the basis of the beliefs

and values that characterize their communities (Ferretter, 2003:137).

Iser speaks of an implied reader. This reader is a hypothetical reader whose background and

attitude are presupposed. This presupposition is necessary for the text to have its full effect.

He maintains that there are two basic, interrelated aspects to this concept, namely the reader's

role as a textual structure and the reader's role as a structured act (Iser, 1978:35). The textual

structures are the perspectives to which the reader must respond. These responses are

inspired by textual components, such as point of view, narrators and characters. These provide

principles that lead the reader to a meeting place where he gains a new perspective. Iser

(1978:35) calls this meeting place “the meaning of the text”. In other words, the textual

structures offer guidelines for the structured acts of the reader and the role of the text is to offer

vantage points; whereas it is the function of the reader as structured act to evaluate these

viewpoints. This evaluation depends on many factors such as the world view, the background,

community and tradition of the reader. The implied reader is in many incidents not the actual

reader. A religious writer may have a religiously implied reader in mind, but the actual reader

may be an atheist. One might say that the reader-response theory works in much the same

way in such a case. The text provides vantage points and the reader constructs meaning. A

possible difficulty may be to construct meaning without prior knowledge or appreciation of what

the text offers. This refers to the fact that knowledge of the Bible is essential in order to

construct meaning from such content in a novel, or at least in order to arrive at the intended

understanding.

The question as to why and how literature generates a privileged space for the return of the

sacred is a crucial part of the puzzle. The dialectical theory of Michael Edwards is of particular

significance. Edwards is influenced by Pascal's concept of grandeur and misère: the greatness

and wretchedness of the human condition (cited in Edwards, 1984:2). This dialectical theory

12

implies that narrative fiction functions within a structure of creation, fall and redemption. He

asserts that “language allows us to become aware of this process and literature is a means of

enacting it, and especially of contesting the Fall and of reaching towards possibility” (Edwards,

1984:2). Literature happens because we live in an imperfect world. We create stories in order

to reach another, better world, a world, which is different from our fallen world, or to

comprehend the awful side of the world. Edwards (1984:73) asserts that: “The start of a story is

so fresh that it occurs in another dimension than our own, which replaces ours in the twinkling of

an opening sentence.” He in turn describes the story endings as a form of salvation. Readers

desire these other worlds that are redeemed and promise a better life. It is, of course, true that

not all narratives follow this pattern of sin, fall and redemption, but for the purposes of this

dissertation and for certain novels, this theory is applicable. It should be noted that the

conclusions drawn from the selected novels are not generalizations of the contemporary novel.

13

Chapter 2: Theoretical framework

2

Introduction

Doctorow (2000:14) in his novel City of God: a novel writes: “But how do we distinguish our truth

from another‟s falsity […] except by the story we cherish? Our story of God. But, my friends, I

ask you: Is God a story? Can we, each of us examining our faith […] can we believe anymore

in the heart of our faith that God is our story of Him?”

Postmodernism is concerned with a plurality of stories which are all considered to be equal.

Lyotard (1984:xxiv) defines postmodernism as “incredulity toward metanarratives”. This implies

a distrust of any grand narratives and their claim to ultimate truth. Postmodernism does not

negate religion as modernism does, but religion is seen as one story among many others (a

matter of individual choice). As Bradley and Tate (2010:2) claim, Lyotard‟s famous criticism of

grand narratives paradoxically lets the Christian story in by the back door. Contemporary

Christians need not be apologetic or shy to proclaim their beliefs in literature, precisely because

postmodernism encourages this fundamental right. The question remains whether this failure of

belief in an overarching grand narrative has ruined the relationship between religion and

literature. This does not seem to be the case if one looks at the incorporation of religious

themes, motifs and archetypes in the contemporary novel, and this in many instances by non-

religious writers.

One writer who includes Christian content without endorsing Christianity is Philip Pullman. He is

openly hostile towards the Judeo-Christian theology, but in his trilogy His dark materials (1995-

2000), he employs the Biblical themes of John Milton‟s Paradise lost: humanity‟s fall from grace

and the battle between good and evil. Callum Brown (2009:193) observes that literature and

“particularly the novel – has become the primary space in which once deep-rooted, if widely

forgotten and deracinated, religious ideas can be revisited, tested and reshaped”. Incredulity

towards metanarratives did not result in their disappearance; if anything it provided an opening

for these to appear in fresh ways in certain contemporary novels.

2.1 Jean François Lyotard

2.1.1 Introduction

This study employs the views of philosopher Jean François Lyotard (1924 – 1999) concerning

the postmodern as a theoretical framework. His views on the metanarrative provide the

heuristic tools necessary to support the thesis. Many who are familiar with the general ideas of

the postmodern, would argue that Christianity does not really have a legitimate place any longer

14

because of the erosion of the metaphysical ideals. However, Lyotard, with his attack on science

and its claim to a higher kind of knowledge, opens up the possibility of reconsidering and

appreciating the Christian narrative once again. Hence, the appearance of religious themes in

contemporary, postmodern novels and in particular in novels written by novelists who are not

overtly or in any way regarded as Christians, seems to support Lyotard‟s thesis.

Lyotard is noted for his articulation of the impact of the postmodern on the human condition.

Although he wrote many books on Postmodernism, the focus will be selective for the purposes

of this dissertation. Lyotard‟s The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge (1984) offers

his most thorough treatment of the postmodern and provides an important discussion of the

concept of metanarratives, especially its status and function. This work is then often seen as

the beginning of postmodern thought. As mentioned in the introduction of this dissertation,

Postmodernism cannot be clearly defined as a certain set of norms or standards. Dahms

(1992:476) concurs that there is, however, a common denominator, which is the rejection of the

norms, values, and especially the claims of the Enlightenment. He calls it “an attitude that

modernity as a project has ultimately failed in its attempt to accomplish human self-realization”.

The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge was originally written in 1979 at the request

of the Quebec government as a report on the status of science and technology, of technocracy

and the control of knowledge and information. Lyotard (1984:xxiii) states in the introduction of

this book: “The object of this study is the condition of knowledge in the most highly developed

societies.”

Lyotard was sympathetic towards Marxism during the 1950s and 60s, but he made a radical

break to Postmodernism in the 1980s. Prior to the Algerian war, he taught and was politically

active in Algeria. He became politically involved and joined the group Socialisme ou Barbari.

Lyotard separated from this group and in 1966 he said: “A stage of my life was ending; I was

leaving the service of the revolution. I would do something else, I had saved my skin” (cited in

Best and Kellner, 1991:148). This break is indicative of his rejection of totalizing modes of

thought or in his words “the incredulity of metanarratives” (Lyotard, 1984:xxiv). Postmodern

people are aware of diversity and difference and realise that people‟s beliefs are antithetical.

Therefore, postmodernity offers an array of petit recits or small narratives to explain the world.

Middleton and Walsh (1995:71) come to the conclusion that no metanarrative “is large enough

and open enough genuinely to include the experiences and realities of all people”. This

viewpoint supports Lyotard‟s notion of petit recits or many small narratives which all vie to be of

value.

15

2.1.2 The metanarrative

At this point it would be useful to look at what exactly is meant by metanarratives. A

metanarrative is an all-embracing story or comprehensive explanation which claims to be able

to explain or make comments on the legitimacy of all remaining stories. In other words, it is a

big story which poses as a totalizing or transcendent truth. Lyotard (1984:37) refers to the

metanarrative as “the grand narrative” that “has lost its credibility”. In other words, people do

not believe in one single overarching story any longer. There is no objective knowledge

because knowledge is context-based and thus influenced by many factors, such as tradition,

culture, background and attitude. According to Leithart (2002:209) in the “place of truth there

are truths, and in place of a single story is a lush garden teeming with delightfully contradictory

narratives. Let a thousand flowers bloom”. This lush garden might as well refer to the

contemporary novel which accommodates both the sacred and the secular. The oxymoron

“delightfully contradictory” points to a status which is preferable to over-arching grand

narratives. What is acceptable as truth in one society or culture is not necessarily true for

another: “the moves judged to be good in one cannot be of the same type as those judged good

in another, unless it happens that way by chance” (Lyotard, 1984:26). Penner (2005:25)

mentions Geivett‟s concern that if this theory of metanarratives is valid and Christianity is also a

metanarrative, then this narrative turn diminishes the Christian doctrine to mere fictional stories.

This is a point to which the discussion will return again after discussing Lyotard‟s concept of

knowledge. It could very well be that precisely because the Christian narrative is no longer

seen as the overarching story, it can once again be considered a worthy narrative. This can

explain the resurgence of Christian themes in some contemporary novels. Christianity can only

be “allowed” in again if it holds to postmodern rules. The conclusion to be drawn from Lyotard‟s

theories concerning the metanarrative is that the belief that the Bible is not true is no more valid

than the Christian belief that the Bible is true.

2.1.3 Scientific and narrative knowledge

According to Lyotard (1984:4) the “nature of knowledge cannot survive unchanged within this

context of general transformation”. He is concerned with how knowledge comes into being, who

decides what it is, and how it becomes accepted as truth. Lyotard (1984:25) distinguishes

between two different types of knowledge: scientific and narrative. Scientific knowledge

includes only denotative statements and excludes all others. Denotative statements signify or

indicate exact, dictionary definitions devoid of emotion, attitude and colour. This notion of

scientific knowledge, being superior to narrative knowledge, can be traced back to the modern

Enlightenment period. Penner (2005:22) maintains that the “modern program shares the Greek

assumption that rational explanation, or knowledge and [episteme], is self-evidently superior to

opinion [doxa]”. Lyotard criticizes scientific knowledge for making universal claims. Prior to the

16

Enlightenment, religious narratives guaranteed truth, but then science started claiming to be the

only source of truth. For Lyotard (1984:26), scientists have no more of a legitimate claim to the

truth than philosophers have:

[…] drawing a parallel between science and non-scientific (narrative) knowledge helps us understand, or at least sense, that the former‟s existence is no more – and no less – necessary than the latter‟s. Both are composed of sets of statements; the statements are „moves‟ made by the players within the framework of generally applicable rules; these rules are specific to each particular kind of knowledge.

Science, furthermore, needed no justification and this is what Lyotard criticizes. According to

him science does need justification and he believes that a “science that has not legitimated itself

is not a true science” (Lyotard, 1984:38). A scientist needs a receiver who can in turn become

the sender; he needs a partner, otherwise the verification of his statements would be

impossible. Stevenson (2000:13) observes that, according to Lyotard, science ultimately

becomes a language game played only by those who are considered competent to take part in

it. There must be a consensus between sender and receiver in order to achieve a legitimation.

This concept of language games comes from Wittgenstein (1889-1951) and Lyotard (1984:10)

explains what Wittgenstein means by this term: “each of the various categories of utterance can

be defined in terms of rules specifying their properties and the uses to which they can be put –

in exactly the same way as the game of chess is defined by a set of rules determining the

properties of each of the pieces, in other words, the proper way to move them”. This is because

science needs a specialized community of participants to produce knowledge and this process

of producing knowledge is not part of the general society. Every discipline has jargon

understood only by those who are within this discipline, in other words, the sender and receiver.

They must agree on the rules of the game. Science, furthermore, needs to resort to narrative in

its discourse and this, according to Lyotard, undermines the legitimacy of science as it becomes

akin to the very thing to which it is opposed (Stevenson, 2000:13). In other words, stooping to

what it resents. Scientists, to Lyotard, are storytellers too. They cannot describe the results of

their experiments without resorting to narrative – stories. This “discourse of legitimation” is

called “philosophy”. Lyotard (1984:xxiii) uses the word modern to “designate any science that

legitimates itself with reference to a metadiscourse of this kind making an explicit appeal to

some grand narrative, such as the dialectics of spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, the

emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of wealth”. In contrast to

modern, postmodern then indicates incredulity towards those grand narratives.

Science can only be legitimated within a certain community where the participants have

reached consensus: “the rules of the game of science, are immanent in that game, that they can

only be established within the bonds of a debate that is already scientific in nature, and that

there is no other proof that the rules are good than the consensus extended to them by the

17

experts” (Lyotard, 1984:29). Narrative knowledge, on the other hand, does not adhere to the

rules of denotative language. It is “related to ideas of internal equilibrium and conviviality”

(Lyotard, 1984:7). In other words, narrative knowledge is socially determined. Whatever is

transferred orally from one generation to another is accepted as the truth. Narrative knowledge

is a form of story-telling and the myths and legends of a particular social group are examples of

such stories. Lyotard (1984:18) continues to say that knowledge is “not only a set of denotative

statements”, but also includes notions of “knowing how to live, “how to listen” [savoir-faire,

savoir-vivre, savoir-écouter]. It is a “question of competence that goes beyond the simple

determination and application of truth, extending to the determination and application of criteria

of efficiency (technical qualification), of justice and/or happiness (ethical wisdom), of the beauty

of sound or color (auditory or visual sensibility)”. Narratives lend themselves to a great variety

of language games and do not need any verification. Cultures that prefer narrative knowledge

need not have them legitimated; they simply need to recall their past and transfer such

knowledge to the next generation.

While a speaker and a hearer engage in a communicative act, they perform the legitimation

process. Here the concept of the social bond or community comes into play again. Narratives

do not make universal claims and do not aspire to be considered absolute truths, but are

accepted within a specific community. Lyotard does not imply that the narrative form is superior

or vice versa because there is no objective knowledge. Narratives need no legitimation

because, according to Lyotard (1984:23), “they are legitimated by the simple fact that they do

what they do”. Narratives authenticate themselves by being told without debating or proof.

Thus non-scientific forms of narrative knowledge, like fables and myths, verify themselves

through their existence. These narratives have been passed down from generation to

generation and this fact is enough to legitimate them in a specific community. This means that

no proof is necessary to validate claims such as the manifestation of supernatural phenomena.

Michel (1997:345) maintains that these myths are regarded as true stories and they bring

narrator and listener into the “presence of ancient knowledge”. This implies that the Christian

story needs no scientific basis in order to be legitimated; it is accepted by communities as true

simply because it has been part of those communities for so long.

2.1.4 Grand narratives of legitimation

Lyotard identifies two grand narratives of legitimation in the modern era: the speculative

narrative (Hegel‟s story) and the narrative of emancipation (Marx‟s story). Here, Michel‟s

explanation of Lyotard‟s two grand narratives is useful. According to Michel (1997:346)

scientific knowledge legitimates itself with the speculative narrative, i.e. science as science or

knowledge as knowledge. Knowledge itself as Spirit or Life is the metasubject; the legitimator

of the narrative and its language game consists of denotative statements with truth as the sole

18

horizon. The emancipation narrative, on the other hand, has humanity as its metasubject, the

autonomous will, which may make use of scientific knowledge to reach conclusions (Michel,

1997:346). Emancipation narratives are all those concepts which try to make sense of history.

The individual needs to be freed (emancipated) from for example the oppressive demands of

the state. Marx, unlike Hegel, believed that the force of history is material and therefore not

spiritual. Economics, according to Marx, determined social phenomena. He included religion in

this status quo in which people were oppressed. Hence, his statement that religion is the opium

of the people. What is important though is that both these narratives are considered

unpersuasive in postmodern thought and that is the reason why postmodern society is

characterized by “an incredulity towards metanarratives” (Michel, 1997:346).

2.1.5 Lyotard’s solution: paralogy/dissension

Lyotard offers as solution a new form of legitimacy called paralogy, derived from the Greek

words: παρα, which means past, beyond or beside and λóγος, meaning reason – in other

words, against reason. In Modern Greek, the word paralogy means something that does not

make sense, which makes it baffling as to how something that does not make sense can be

considered a solution to the problem of legitimation. What Lyotard actually means by paralogy

is not some argument that does not make sense, but reasoning in a new way with new ideas

and new rules for the language games. Elsewhere, Lyotard (1984:61) calls it dissension, and

this is considered a preferable term: “it is now dissension that must be emphasized”.

Dissension challenges existing rationalities. Lyotard (1984:xxv) maintains that: “Postmodern

knowledge is not simply a tool of the authorities; it refines our sensitivity to differences and

reinforces our ability to tolerate the incommensurable. The incommensurable includes that

which is inexplicable in rational terms. Its principle is not the expert‟s homology, but the

inventor‟s paralogy.” By paralogy, Lyotard means that cultural and social life will always be

characterized by differing ideas. Lyotard prefers paralogy as consensus has become an

outmoded and suspect model. Therefore, these differences should be articulated so that

minority groups and oppositional groups are given a platform, unlike in totalitarian discourses

where differing voices are silenced. Stevenson (2000:23) sees the result of paralogy (dissent)

as stronger discourses dominating weaker discourses. Stronger discourses mean more

institutionalized discourses such as churches. The ultimate consequence may be that of

violence being inflicted on the silenced party. This is a concept akin to Gianni Vattimo and will

be developed in the next section. Grand narratives are totalizing and exclude other narratives.

Many metanarratives can be considered to be ideological and therefore the suspicion can be

justified. Although Lyotard‟s main targets are Hegelianism and Marxism when talking about

metanarratives, one can inevitably apply his theories to Christianity as well.

19

2.1.6 Is Christianity a metanarrative?

Having discussed Lyotard‟s bifurcation of the two modes of knowledge, namely scientific and

narrative, this section returns to his concept of metanarratives. The question whether religion or

Christianity is a metanarrative is relevant to this dissertation, although not of major concern. It is

not the intent of this investigation to provide an objective answer to that question simply

because it is not possible to say, with absolute certainty, whether religion or Christianity qualifies

as a metanarrative or not. Nietzsche‟s belief that there are no facts, only interpretations

provides some direction for this question about metanarratives. Best and Kellner (1991:22)

concur that “Nietzsche attacked philosophical conceptions of the subject, representation,

causality, truth, value, and system, replacing Western philosophy with a perspectivist orientation

for which there are no facts, only interpretations, and no objective truths, only the constructs of

various individuals or groups”. To make the assumption that religion is a metanarrative could

qualify as being a metanarrative itself. There are arguments claiming to prove the fact that

religion or Christianity is a metanarrative and arguments refuting the fact that religion or

Christianity can be regarded as a metanarrative. Both will be presented later on. Some critics

argue that Christianity with its metaphysical and doctrinal assertions cannot be anything but a

metanarrative, while others totally reject Christianity as an example of a metanarrative; yet

others argue that Christianity is a metanarrative, but that it can escape those postmodern

criticisms. What is an irrefutable fact is what Westphal (2005:147) says about the impact of

Lyotard‟s statement on Christians:

In my experience no other theme from our gang of Six [Nietzsche, Freud, Heidegger, Marx, Rorty and Foucault], not even Derrida‟s (in)famous “There is nothing outside the text,” generates as much apoplexy among Christian scholars or as high a degree of certainty that Christianity and postmodernism represent a dyad-like truth and error, light and darkness, good and evil, and so forth.

What Westphal asserts is that the labelling of Christianity as a metanarrative elicits extreme

reactions of anger among Christians, but at the same time the realization that Christianity and

postmodernism are dichotomies.

Smith (2005:124-125), in an article entitled “A little story about metanarratives: Lyotard, religion

and postmodernism revisited,” endeavours to prove that Christianity is not the target of

Lyotard‟s critique and is, therefore, not a metanarrative in Lyotard‟s sense of the word. Smith

(2005:125) believes that what is at stake is not the scope of these narratives, but the nature of

the claims they make. He maintains that the Biblical story and Christian faith do not claim to be

legitimated by an appeal to reason, but rather by an appeal to faith. In other words, Lyotard‟s

incredulity does not apply to religion because Christianity depends on faith to legitimate itself.

He does admit, however, that the Biblical story makes grand, universal claims: “Yes, it makes

20

grand, even universal claims (e.g. that every person is created in the image of God); but it does

not – at least within a broadly conceived “Augustinian” tradition – claim to be legitimated by

Reason, but rather trusted in faith” (Smith, 2005:125). Geivett wants to know what Smith means

by “an appeal to faith” and he also questions Smith‟s argument that Christianity is not

legitimated by an appeal to universal, autonomous reason. His question is: if not universal,

autonomous reason, what other reason can it be? Geivett (2005:164-165) continuous to

question Smith‟s assumption that “all knowledge is grounded in narrative” which, according to

Geivett, could mean that narrative is instrumental in defining truth”. This is not possible

according to Lyotard because narratives cannot make an appeal to truth. This is because the

meanings which constitute world views cannot be known to be objectively true.

Smith (2005:127) disagrees with Middleton and Walsh‟s understanding of Lyotard‟s notion of

metanarratives. He maintains that they have misread Lyotard in three ways: they argue that the

problem with metanarratives is their scope – they are universal stories that make total claims

that could lead to violence; they say that metanarratives are merely “social constructions

masquerading as universal truths”; and they posit that the Biblical story as a metanarrative is

also “subject to the postmodern charge of totalizing violence”. Middleton and Walsh (1995:75)

are of the opinion that Christianity is a metanarrative, but that it can escape the postmodern

critique because Christianity has an ethical aspect which saves it from giving in to violence.

They maintain that: “If metanarratives are social constructions, then, like abstract ethical

systems, they are simply particular moral visions dressed up in the guise of universality”

(Middleton and Walsh, 1995:70). One can agree that Christianity has an ethical aspect, but so

do all religions. What is also true is that a person can be ethically just without being religious at

all. Are all the other religions, excluding Christianity, grand narratives? To say that Christianity

escapes the totalizing violence might be true in more civilized times, but the same cannot be

said of Christianity during earlier times: between 315 and the 6th century thousands of pagan

believers were slain, Emperor Charlemagne in 782 had 4500 Saxons beheaded because they

were unwilling to convert to Christianity. During the time of the Crusades 1095-1291, many

atrocities were committed in order to advance Christianity against the insurgence of Islam.

There are numerous other examples to mention, but it would suffice to make the point that

Christianity has not been devoid of totalizing violence.

Lyotard and other authors like Derrida, Foucault and Eagleton go further than the language of

social construction to describe our violent relation to the world in terms of metanarratives and

totalization. They believe that the world is socially constructed, but in violent ways where the

marginal is oppressed and the most-constructing power is legitimated (cited in Middleton and

Walsh, 1995:145). Middleton and Walsh, however, believe that the Biblical metanarrative has

the message of God, which is compassion and justice, and that the body of Christ (the actual

Christians) can refute this charge by living a non-totalizing life. This links with Vattimo‟s criteria

21

for escaping relativism or a concept of everything goes. He also sees as criteria the love

(caritas) of all humankind towards others and God.

Smith (2005:127) criticizes Stanley Grenz‟s notion that the scope of metanarratives is the

problem:

What makes our condition „postmodern‟ is not only that people no longer cling to the myths of modernity. The postmodern outlook entails the end of the appeal to any central legitimating myth whatsoever. Not only have all the reigning master narratives lost their credibility, but the idea of a grand narrative is itself no longer credible. […] Consequently, the postmodern outlook demands an attack on any claimant to universality – it demands, in fact, a “war on totality”.

The words “war on totality” are those with which Lyotard concluded The postmodern condition: a

report on knowledge: “The answer is: Let us wage war on totality; let us be witnesses to the

unpresentable; let us activate the differences and save the honor of the name” (Lyotard,

1984;82). Smith insists that this plurality of language games (narratives, myths, beliefs) actually

presents an opportunity for religious thought. One can agree with Smith that this plurality offers

Christianity an opportunity to be provided a space for religious discourse, but his view that

Christianity is not a metanarrative is disputable. The Christian story legitimates only one

kingdom and delegitimates all other kingdoms. This fact in itself is enough to make Christianity

a metanarrative.

Whether or not Lyotard included Christianity as metanarrative remains a point of contention and

as with so many other postmodern questions, there are no easy answers. According to Smith

(2005:128), Middleton and Walsh, as well as Grenz present a “more nuanced dichotomy”. Brian

Ingraffia presents this bifurcation in the starkest of terms: either Biblical theology or postmodern

theory. Ingraffia (1995:14) maintains:

Most work in postmodernism and theology to date seeks reconciliation between these two discourses, a postmodern theology of some sort (even if this be „a/theology‟). […] I seek to deny the possibility of such a synthesis. […] I seek to separate the God of the Bible from the god of the philosophers, for it is the confusion between these two Gods which has caused Christianity to be uncritically equated with ontotheology.

Ingraffia seems to want to separate the study [logos] of beings [onta] from theology, which is the

study of god [Theos]. This rigid dichotomy is in contrast with common trends in postmodernism

where emphasis is on a both/and, rather than an either/or synthesis. One could agree with

Smith that “incredulity towards metanarratives” should be seen as an ally rather than a foe.

Smith‟s argument is that because all knowledge is rooted in narrative, this incredulity should be

seen as an ally. He argues that according to Lyotard no knowledge escapes prejudice or faith

commitments and for that reason the playing field is levelled (Smith, 2005:134). The playing

field is levelled when every view is considered to be equal when we realise that all views

22

(including religion) are nothing more than interpretations. In this way Christianity or religion is a

legitimate narrative, even if only within a certain community. In such a community or cultural

group the sender and receiver understand the rules of the game and consensus can be reached

with mutual understanding of the language game.

2.1.7 Criticism of Lyotard’s concept of metanarratives

Lyotard‟s concept of metanarratives did not escape criticism. Best and Kellner (1991:171-173)

argue that Lyotard‟s postmodern condition advocates a radical break from modernity and this as

such presupposes another master narrative or totalizing perspective, which shows a transition

from a previous stage of society to a new one. They argue that Lyotard cannot call for plurality

and then exclude those grand narratives he believes have monopolized the discussion.

Middleton and Walsh (1995:75) maintain that it must be admitted that some of the postmodern

suspicion is justified because many metanarratives are rooted in ideologies which impose their

realities and in the process marginalize or suppress minority stories. The pair even agrees with

the remedy of a plurality of voices that should be heard. However, they identify a few problems

with this remedy: local stories can be and have been responsible for violence on a scale similar

to metanarratives. Like Best and Kellner, they also believe that postmodernity functions as a

“larger interpretive frame that relativizes all other world views as simply local stories with no

legitimate claims to reality or universality” (Middleton and Walsh, 1995:77). Ultimately, the

solution that Middleton and Walsh come to is that metanarratives and local stories should be

seen as both remedy and poison. They quote the words of Jacques Derrida from his essay

“Plato‟s pharmacy” in which he deconstructs Plato‟s Phaedrus and where he comes to see that

the word Pharmakon (medicine) has both a positive and negative meaning: “This pharmakon,

this „medicine,‟ this philter, which acts as both remedy and poison, already introduces itself into

the body of the discourse with all its ambivalence. This charm, this spellbinding virtue, this

power of fascination, can be – alternately or simultaneously – beneficent or maleficent” (cited in

Middleton and Walsh, 1995:79). Metanarratives and local stories can be functional and

remedial if there is tolerance for plurality and difference. This is necessary as the search for

truth is a never-ending and fluid process which is moulded by cultural beliefs. However,

metanarratives or local stories can be responsible for intolerance, a marginalization of minority

beliefs and may ultimately result in violence.

The question one may ask is: does Lyotard‟s concept of the grand narrative having lost its

legitimacy undermine this close relationship between religion and literature? On closer analysis

of selected postmodern novels it seems as if the sacred and secular share a mutual space in

the novels. Incredulity towards metanarratives has not dispensed with religion or spirituality

because these manifest themselves in various ways in the novels: Biblical themes, symbols and

intertextual writing. Many contemporary writers, both believers and non-believers, incorporate

23

and revitalize stories of Christ, angels, faith healing and stigmata. There is at the same time a

disdain for the spiritual, as well as a longing for the divine.

Kourie and Ruthenberg (2010:104) maintain in an article entitled “Contemporary Christian

spirituality and postmodernism” that: “Contemporary spirituality gives some recognition to a non-

foreclosed spiritual search; it recognizes the inevitable ache of absence common to Christian

devotion and postmodern spiritual fragmentation.” This belief and disbelief are simultaneously

present in the contemporary novel. It is as if there is interdependence: the one cannot exist

without the other. In other words, the collapse of the grand narratives does not simply imply that

we are now in a new dispensation. Nicoletta Pireddu (2002:303) argues that this collapse of the

metanarratives in Lyotard‟s The Postmodern condition (1984) is not exempt from doubts or an

impasse in Gianni Vattimo‟s view. Vattimo proposes a sort of rethinking of traditional philosophy

without attempting to overcome it. This overcoming (Űberwindung) is a term used by Hegel and

later adapted by Heidegger and Nietzsche to Verwindung, which is a “declination and distortion

of the category of dialectical overcoming (or Űberwindung), but also a convalescence from, and

resignation to, metaphysics” (Pireddu, 2002:304). This means that Vattimo believes that we

cannot simply discard what we have inherited, but that we should approach these categories

with pietas or respect. The recurrence of Christian themes can be found in the traces that are

present in the contemporary novel, traces of the past that cannot simply be abandoned in

preference of new categories. These traces reveal themselves in Vattimo‟s concept of weak

thought (IL pensiero debole), which will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter. Lyotard

and Vattimo differ essentially in that Lyotard proposes a new condition whereas Vattimo does

not see the postmodern as a celebration of the new, but rather a recollection of the past, an

acceptance of modernity, but with the understanding of transforming its nihilistic tendencies.

Christianity can certainly be classified as a metanarrative. It has always been regarded as the

ultimate truth and the only road to salvation for Christians. Those who argue against

Christianity being a metanarrative have legitimate reasons for their argument and the common

denominator for them all is probably the possibility of marginalizing or degrading Christianity to

the level of myths and stories. This is, however, not necessary because if Christianity is the

petit recit (small narrative) of a community or culture, why should an argument whether

Christianity qualifies as a metanarrative or not detract from the value of such beliefs? Is God

undermined by having conversations with postmodernism? However, there should be tolerance

among different groups and caritas or charity (love) for one‟s neighbour should be the basis on

which one judges conflicting interpretations. This is indeed what Gianni Vattimo proposes.

Frederiek Depoorte (2009:887) concurs that with Vattimo‟s caritas, relativism can be avoided.

In other words, not everything is acceptable or relative, but love is the ingredient necessary to

legitimate a metanarrative.

24

2.2 Gianni Vattimo

2.2.1 Introduction

Gianteresio Vattimo‟s (1936 - ) ideas on the role of religion in contemporary life and the possible

convergences of postmodernity and the Christian faith are of importance for this dissertation. In

his book, Belief (1999) he mentions specific reasons for this “return” to religion. This bears

relevance to this dissertation as the book examines the return of religious themes in selected

contemporary novels. Vattimo does not just explain the concept of the postmodern, but through

critical distortion endeavours to recover or revive the Judeo-Christian tradition as the origin of

postmodern thought. Vattimo paradoxically believes that the return of religion is made possible

because of the ideas of Nietzsche and Heidegger. This section is an endeavour to clarify how

the ideas of these two masters of suspicion paradoxically led Vattimo to his notion of the return

of religion. In his book, Belief (1999:33) he says: “I have begun to take Christianity seriously

again because I have constructed a philosophy inspired by Nietzsche and Heidegger, and have

interpreted my experience of the contemporary world in the light of it.” Vattimo‟s notions of

weak thought, caritas and kenosis are central and in many ways unique in terms of postmodern

ideas.

2.2.2 Nietzsche and Heidegger

Vattimo bases his theories on the notions of Nietzsche and Heidegger, respectively the idea of

the death of God and the end of metaphysics. Nietzsche announced the death of God in The

gay science. It happens through the voice of a madman who proclaims: “After Buddha was

dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave – A tremendous, gruesome shadow.

God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which

his shadow will be shown. – And we – we still have to vanquish his shadow, too” (Nietzsche,

1974:108). Here, Nietzsche does not only attack Christian belief, but all other religious beliefs

as well. Vattimo interprets this death as the death of the moral-metaphysical God. He left open

the possibility that new gods might be created. Nietzsche, according to Vattimo (1999:16), did

not close off the possibility of a renewal of religious experience. Vattimo does not regard

Nietzsche‟s words as atheistic, in other words meaning – that God does not exist. What he

understands with the words “God is dead”, is that Nietzsche meant that there is no ultimate

foundation. According to Vattimo (1999:16), Nietzsche maintains that those who believed in

God have killed Him because, the faithful, who have learned not to lie, have discovered that in

the end God is redundant. In other words, what Nietzsche means is that we have murdered

God with our human and natural sciences.

For Vattimo, however, this means that a few factors contributed to the fact that a unified world

order is impossible. He mentions: the specialization of scientific languages, the proliferation of

25

cultures, the fragmentation of the life spheres, and the Babel-like pluralism of late-modern

society (Vattimo, 2002:15). Nihilistic thought indicates that metaphysical truths express

subjective values of individuals or social groups. This means that everything is interpretation

and that the world is a world of difference. There is no longer a highest value, such as God, on

which all other values are founded and therefore, each value is equivalent to all other values.

According to Nietzsche, the concept of truth is an illusion – a cultural construct. No value can

be considered higher or more authentic than another. Vattimo (1988:xxi-xxiii) does not see this

disappearance of the former highest value as catastrophic for humanity, but there is a possibility

of new human experience. He sees this precisely through the infinite interpretability that “has

led to the weakening of the cogent force of reality because it has made all that is given [by

metaphysics] as real, necessary, peremptory and true into simply another interpretative

possibility among a plethora of such possibilities”. Vattimo regards the Internet as an example

of such a plethora of possibilities. The answers to questions such as: Does God exist? Which

values are ultimate? will be multivalent and there will be inexhaustible explanations. In The

transparent society, Vattimo (1992:8) includes an essay entitled “The human sciences and the

society of communication,” in which he mentions the influence of the mass media:

If the proliferation of images of the world entails that we lose our sense of reality, as the saying goes, perhaps it is not such a great loss after all. By a perverse kind of internal logic, the world of objects measured and manipulated by techno-science (the world of the real, according to metaphysics) has become the world of merchandise and images, the phantasmagoria of the mass media.

Thus, for Nietzsche and Vattimo, nihilism is a progressive alienation of humanity in the period of

techno-science. Ironically, Vattimo does not see technology as a force that alienates, but as an

opportunity for new experiences. He embraces Nietzsche‟s concept of an active nihilism, which

means that one readily accepts, without resentment, the invalidity of the world. Vattimo believes

that postmodern philosophy emerged when Nietzsche‟s mature works were published. What is

important, however, is that Vattimo believes that the end of modernity does not simply mean the

appearance of a newer stage of history. To pinpoint the exact time when modernity came to an

end is not possible for Vattimo. Thus, what he says in effect is that modernity and

postmodernity will always co-exist in a historical space (Vattimo, 1988:xviii). Vattimo sees

modernity as a necessary stage in the recovery of religion in contemporary culture. Eagleton

(cited in Tate, 2008:17) observes that modernity was “always religious, despite its loud

protestations: the Enlightenment did not really kill God but merely gave him a series of majestic

new names, like Nature, Man, Reason, History, Power, Desire, and so on”. This religious

revival is more of a spirituality than a rigid manifestation of doctrines of any specific religion.

This notion irrevocably ties in with the thesis of this dissertation in that the sacred and secular

co-exist and share a privileged space in many contemporary novels. Postmodernity has

opened up a space where the radically different or “the other” can be accommodated. Snyder

26

in his translator‟s note to The end of modernity mentions the idea of exchange value. This

means that each value is equal to all others and can be exchanged for any other (cited in

Vattimo, 1988:xxi).

Heidegger‟s notion of the end of metaphysics corresponds to Nietzsche‟s notion of the death of

God in that a belief in an objective world is no longer possible. Heidegger‟s Being and time

(1927) conceives of Being as event rather than objective structure. Being is not stable and

eternal and Heidegger regards the event of Being as a remembrance. According to Heidegger,

Being should be seen as non-metaphysical. In other words, Being is something that has been

forgotten and cannot be thought of as a stable presence. Heidegger (1962:74) asserts that “the

idea of transcendence, according to which man is more than a mere something endowed with

intelligence, has worked itself out with different variations”. Being is interpretation. This

remembrance or recollecting (Andenken) is accompanied by a sort of overcoming (Verwindung)

which for Vattimo constitutes the mode of postmodern philosophy (Vattimo, 1988:172-173).

Verwindung means to be cured, to heal, to twist, to distort or to alter. This does not mean that

there is simply a transition from one stage to another, but an acceptance and at the same time a

seeking to be cured of metaphysics. The expression used by Snyder in his translator‟s

introduction is very appropriate when he says that “metaphysics cannot simply be shed like a

tattered, worn-out garment, or left behind like a doctrine in which we no longer believe;

postmodern thought acknowledges this, and does not pretend to represent the revolutionary

overthrow or reversal of the heritage of modern thought” (cited in Vattimo, 1989:1). Such a

[Verwindung] is at once a “recovery from and a resignation to metaphysics” (Vattimo,

1988:xxvi). In an article entitled “The Trace of The Trace,” Vattimo (1998:79) says that:

In religion, something that we thought irrevocably forgotten is made present again, a dormant trace is reawakened, a wound re-opened, the repressed returns and what we took to be an Űberwindung (overcoming, realization and thus a setting aside) is no more than a Verwindung, a long convalescence that has once again come to terms with the indelible trace of its sickness.

Interesting is the word choice of “wound” here, which has connotations of pain and trauma, but

also of something that can be healed over time. This could imply that the issue of religion is

one associated with suffering, but with the possibility of recovery and restoration to a former

more glorious state. The word “trace” here refers to a vestige or relic, which is then the re-

emergence of religion in contemporary society and of course simultaneously in the novel.

Vattimo (1999:15) contends that God is “disclosed as a trace that makes itself felt in our

language”. Luca D‟Isanto in his thesis, Theology and Gianni Vattimo’s ontological hermeneutics

(1993:336) says that “tradition is a network of meanings, of references, of linguistic messages

that are always already inscribed in our language.” He aptly calls these messages monuments

which preserve the memory of a nation, a culture or community. Monuments are important as

they remind of the past, but our future is also projected out of them. Luca D‟Isanto (1993:221)

27

translated the words of Vattimo: “The possibility of access to the truth […] is not so much bound

up to the present or the future, but to the past. The past, repeated as a possibility which is still

open, liberates us from the opacity of everyday obviousness. This past which is still open – like

a classic text, a work of art, a hero capable of making itself a model – can be named a

monument”.

Vattimo sees the importance of retaining the traces of the past because it is through the past

that we can construct a future. Postmodernity is not simply a new period in which all traces of

the past have been abandoned. These traces are evident in the selected novels as sacred

contents that were abandoned during Modernity, but are now resurfacing in re-shaped and

revitalized forms. These sacred contents are the religious themes that are resurfacing once

again, in fresh ways.

2.2.3 Vattimo’s concept of weak thought

Weak thought is the solution at which Vattimo arrives at in order to overcome the violence of

metaphysical thought – a culmination of the works of Nietzsche and Heidegger. Weak thought

acknowledges that human life has an interpretative nature and that the world is not there as an

uninterpreted reality. Everything has already been interpreted. We operate within different

language games as Lyotard said. Thus, truth is relative to culture. Weak thought takes on the

form of an ontological hermeneutics and it attempts to interpret the world and texts in a way that

will be persuasive to other cultures. Weak thought is only an interpretation too and tries to

avoid the difficulties of metaphysics recognized by Nietzsche and Heidegger. In other words,

weak thought could be seen as anti-metaphysical and against dogmatism. Strong thought

makes claims to finality and truth and believes it has final and clear answers. Guarino (2011:21)

observes that weak thought with its “profound doubts about objective reality and absolute

certainty, serves for Vattimo, as a way of liberating human freedom for those who would stifle

emancipation and creativity with bellicose claims to certitude and finality”. Weak thought implies

the giving up of power and territory without the fear of retreating. Thus, not knowing the truth

opens a possibility for religion once again. This reminds of Smith‟s notion of levelling the

playing field discussed earlier on. Snyder, in his translator‟s introduction to Vattimo‟s The end of

modernity observes “that „weak thought‟ may be best understood as a style of thought rather

than as a fully developed and self-consistent philosophical system” (Vattimo, 1988, 1iv). When

Vattimo speaks of a return to religion, he does not mean a belief in a clearly defined body of

doctrines because that is exactly what was rejected as metaphysical ideas. In After Christianity

he explains: “The concept of postmodern faith has nothing to do with the acceptance of strictly

defined dogmas or with disciplines imposed by a single authority” (Vattimo, 2002:9). In other

words, there should be an overcoming of objectivistic dogmatism.

28

2.2.4 Caritas (charity) and kenosis (self-emptying)

In the place of dogmatism and doctrines, Vattimo proposes caritas (charity). This correlates

with love for thy neighbour, and in Vattimo‟s words: “the Christian inheritance that „returns‟ in

weak thought is primarily the Christian precept of charity and its rejection of violence” (Vattimo,

1999:44). Caritas implies a tolerance towards others, an acceptance of differences – the living

fruit of the Christian faith. This concept of charity or tolerance is embedded in the kenosis (self-

emptying) of God. The word kenosis comes from the Greek word for self-emptying “kένωσίς”.

This essentially refers to the self-emptying of one‟s own will and the process of becoming

completely receptive to God‟s will. This self-emptying began with the incarnation of Christ.

Christ became a slave and debased himself here on earth. The incarnation of Christ is

summarised in Philippians 2:7: “Instead of this, of his own free will he gave up all he had, and

took the nature of a servant” (Bible, 2001:22). This incarnation of Christ is similar to a handing

down or giving up of power. Vattimo sees this debasing of the Son of God as convergent with

the weak thought of Heidegger who teaches the end of metaphysics and of Nietzsche who

teaches the death of the moral-metaphysical god (Guarino, 2011:25). This necessarily results

in a different relationship between Divinity and the human race: God, who was Father, becomes

friend. According to Vattimo, secularization should be seen as friend and not foe, because

there is room for everyone. Vattimo sees secularization as “the recognition that the world is a

festival of interpretative plurality with no one claiming privileged access to the ontos on”

(Guarino, 2011:26). In other words, secularization does not simply imply an alienation from the

divine, but as Vattimo says “a path to be retraced in reverse by believers in order to recover the

truth of the original Biblical message” (Vattimo, 2003:41). Just like Lyotard believes that the end

of metanarratives actually allows religion in at the back door, Vattimo sees secularization as a

sort of “truce” between philosophy, religion and science. It is exactly because meta-narratives

are no longer credible to all that religion is considered once again as one legitimate story among

many others.

2.2.5 Reasons for the return to religion

Vattimo says in his book Belief that he is not ashamed to admit that for him personally, this

return to religion is linked to the experience of death – the premature death of people he thought

would be around when his time comes. He continues to say that although it is true that

whenever people get old they tend to start thinking more about God, this return is closely

connected to historical circumstances. We realize that we could not establish justice here on

earth and while death is looming over us, we turn to God (Vattimo, 1999:24). He believes that

this return to religion is bound up with “the apparent insolubility, with the instruments of reason

and technology” (Vattimo, 1999:25). Here Vattimo mentions issues in bio-ethics, from genetic

manipulation to ecology, and problems concerning the explosion of violence in the new

29

conditions of existence within mass society. The fact that these problems remain unresolved

could be a reason for this renewed interest in religion. In other words, if science cannot explain

and find solutions, humans turn to God again. During the Enlightenment period, humankind felt

that reason alone could provide the answers and that science could bring about lasting change.

Humans expected the modern period to be of ultimate help, but was once again disenchanted.

Now, during the postmodern period, there is a renewed spirituality, a search for the ineffable.

Humankind endeavours to transcend this void, to overcome this inevitable and demoralizing

truth of death. The challenge that the contemporary writer faces today is how to construct a

meaningful faith in a world that recognizes the futility of human life. In the end it does not matter

what religion the writer subtly promotes or which doctrines he or she espouses, but how he

deals with the subject matter. As Ryken (2002:32) rightfully says: “We do not have to inquire

into a writer‟s orthodoxy to determine whether a novel or poem is worthy of praise.” Sacred and

secular are inextricably bound in the same novel because novelists address a very diverse

audience who is torn between belief in God, disbelief and a kind of neutrality.

Vattimo also mentions politics as a definite contributor to this return to religion, although he sees

it more as an effect than a cause. He mentions as example the increased attention given to

Muslim fundamentalists as a result of the petrol war. This would not have been possible without

this political conflict (Vattimo, 1999:27). As discussed earlier on in the section on Nietzsche and

Heidegger, Vattimo sees secularization as a positive influence on the return to religion. It is

precisely this caritas or tolerance that led to a modern understanding of rights, social relations

and the dissolution of class structures.

Andrew Hass mentions four categories as markers for a return to religion: post-secularity,

globalization, culturality and interdisciplinarity. After the Enlightenment, terms like post-secular

philosophy, post-secular reason and post-secular theology came to the foreground. According

to Hass (2007:843) these terms indicate that the new millennium has not discarded religion or

spirituality as something archaic and unsustainable, but that “religious or spiritual matters,

whether in the form of lingering cultural vestiges or resurfaced interests, continue to influence

and inform our fundamental thinking, actions and creations”. This reminds of Vattimo‟s

monuments or traces that manifest in postmodernity and as stated earlier on, the traces are the

resurfacing of religious themes in many contemporary novels. Hass (2007:845) furthermore

mentions globalization through the media, the internet or travel as a significant contributor to the

return of religion. However, this globalization could lead to an awareness of other cultures and

as such then to an acceptance of other modes of thinking, but at the same time it could also

lead to “the other” being seen as a threat, resulting in fundamentalism. This is the violence that

Vattimo refers to when believers cling rigidly to doctrines and totalize their beliefs as absolute

truths. When systems of belief start intermingling, one arrives at a multicultural spirituality with

elements of many belief systems. Vattimo (2002:18) also explicitly mentions this multi-ethnic

30

society in most industrialized nations and the fact that the voices of other cultures are heard

after the demise of colonialism. Hass (2007:847) concurs that culturality is closely linked to

globalization. He defines culture as “the accretion of a people‟s achievements, customs, and

values as they are symbolized and given meaning within a given historical period; culturality is

the dynamic interplay between various realms of experience and between the

conceptualizations of those experiences as they feed into one another across a wide range of

social production and theoretical circumscription”. Religion is then part of a cultural hermeneutic

– we incorporate cultural practices into our stories and our understanding of the divine.

Religious themes are used in many contemporary novels not just to revitalize religion, but also

to ask questions concerning the nature of religion and to emphasize the very diverse cultural

approaches there are. The last of the four categories that Hass discusses is interdisciplinarity.

This can be seen as the overlapping or interpenetration of disciplines and fields of study. One

writer can include many different disciplines in his writing, for example, history, philology,

sociology, feminism, anthropology, art and music. Hass (2007:853) concludes by saying that

literature “brings us out of our closets of abstraction, and shows us our material contingencies

and the new possibilities that might thereby arise”.

Both Vattimo and Hass maintain that there is not a single reason that is solely responsible for

the return of religion, but that these reasons intersect with one another. One can elaborate on

the reasons for a return to religion, but that would entail moving into another discipline entirely,

namely sociology. For the purposes of this dissertation, we shall suffice with the reasons

offered by Vattimo and Hass. What is, however, of importance is that religion is back and

manifests itself in fresh ways in some contemporary novels. The way in which sacred and

secular co-exist in the novel without anyone making universal claims or aspiring to provide final

answers, is what provides a forum, a space for discourse.

2.3 Reader-response theory

2.3.1 Introduction

Marshall (1995:71) in an essay entitled “Reading and interpretive communities” asserts that the

modern image of a reader as an individual engrossed with a text and the previous assumption

that the reader allows the text to reach its audience through loud reading, both have

implications for an understanding of interpretation. He furthermore reflects on the way

Descartes emphasized the importance of the self with his famous declaration; “I am thinking,

therefore I am” (cited in Law, 2007:279). The Reformation principle that an individual is

responsible for his/her own salvation ties in with this emphasis on the individual. Marshall

(1995:74) states that this new way of thinking about the individual and his/her acceptance of

responsibility directs our attention to the problem of finding the correct way to interpret literary

31

works. He insists that the individual must ensure that he/she comes to his/her own

understanding of literary works instead of relying on others for interpretation.

It is clear that in modern times the individual and his/her needs came more to the foreground,

but emphasis was also placed on social collaboration and the individual as part of a community.

Marshall refers to a series of lectures by Josiah Royce, “The Problem of Christianity” (1913) in

which Royce mentions the notion of interpretive communities. Royce‟s main concern was

whether it is possible to understand the individual and the community in a way consistent with

specifically Christian ideas. The conclusion to which he comes is that it is possible if one sees

society as made up of individuals being part of an interpretive community (cited in Marshall,

1995:79). He sees a community as “something practical, a being that attempts to accomplish

something in time and through the deeds of its members”. There are three criteria for such

members: the members must perceive of their lives as extended time-processes, they must be

linked together by communication, which presupposes that they do not merely melt together,

and each member must have at least some remembered and some hoped-for events in

common with other members (cited in Marshall, 1995:81).

The members of a Christian community will necessarily have common goals and there will be

mutual feelings, thoughts and will among them. This implies a certain commitment and thus

loyalty to the community. It is clear that the concept of interpretative communities is not a new

phenomenon but a notion that existed in earlier times. This may be indicative of Lyotard‟s

metanarrative and the subsequent belief that religion is a social construct.

2.3.2 Roland Barthes – The Death of the author

The twentieth century has seen major changes in the way the reader is perceived as he/she has

been elevated from being considered unimportant to playing a key role in the interpretation of

literary texts. Reader-response theory acknowledges the reader as an active participant who

through interpretation completes the meaning of a text. This notion stands in direct contrast to

the theories of New Criticism and Formalism regarding the role of the reader. Both these

schools of thought ignore the reader‟s role and concentrate on the textual artefacts. All

autobiographical, historical and social aspects are also negated by these schools. Roland

Barthes (1925 – 1980) in a 1967 essay “Death of the author” argues that the intention and other

aspects of the author‟s identity such as ethnicity, political convictions and religious affiliation

should not be taken into account when analysing texts. Barthes says: “As institution, the author

is dead: his civic status, his biographical person has disappeared” (cited in Burke, 1992:29).

Readers have the task to separate literary works from the writer and the meaning of a text is

ultimately dependent on what the reader does with it – his impressions of it. In other words, the

death of the author means the birth of the reader. Barthes feels that to assign a single

32

interpretation to a text that is permeated by the writer‟s passions and tastes is to limit a text. He

says that “a text is not a line of words releasing a single “theological” meaning (the „message‟ of

the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them

original, blend and clash” (cited in Burke, 1992:25). One might agree with Schad (1995:253)

that Roland Barthes may have got it wrong when he concurred that “to refuse to fix meaning is,

in the end, to refuse God”. Schad (1995:253) believes that even though the signs and texts

may not make sense, this does not mean that there is no God because the Christian God “is not

wedded to sense, or meaning – or at least meaning as something definite”.

2.3.3 Wolfgang Iser, Stanley Fish and interpretive communities

Whereas Barthes and others completely disregard the influence of the author, Wolfgang Iser

offers a more balanced approach, when he states that there is a “dialectic approach between

text, reader and their interaction” (Iser, 1978:x). He calls this response of the reader an

aesthetic response rather than a reader response, for it involves the reader‟s imaginative and

perceptive abilities used to adjust or distinguish his or her own centre (Iser, 1978:x). Iser

furthermore argues that there are always gaps in texts which need to be filled by the reader.

These occur when the “flow” is interrupted and readers are led off in other directions. The

reader makes sense of what is not said, in other words of that which is concealed. Iser

(1978:34) refers to an implied reader, as this reader‟s character is not predetermined. This

reader has all the “predispositions necessary for a literary work to exercise its effect”. As

mentioned in the introduction of this dissertation, Iser believes that this implied reader‟s role has

three components: the different perspectives in the text, the vantage point from which the

reader joins them together, and the meeting place where they converge. The whole process is

interactive and meaning is dependent on all these processes coming together.

Stanley Fish (cited in Ferretter, 2003:133) also believes that the Formalist and New Critical

schools of thought take no account of the reader‟s experience. His notion of interpretive

communities is relevant to this dissertation as religious themes are definitively part of the

content of certain communities. He believes that members of a certain community have similar

methods while reading. The members having the same methods is a consequence of members

sharing the same presumptions before they read, and these presumptions influence their

interpretations of texts. Those who share those conventions inherent to their communities may

agree on interpretations of texts. This may lead to members of a community agreeing on the

meaning of texts. One has to keep in mind that an individual is a member of numerous

interpretive communities at the same time. This may result in conflict in an individual and will

lead to a negotiation between conflicting principles when a text is interpreted. Meaning is to be

found in the reading and not in the text: “the reader‟s activities are at the center of attention,

where they are regarded not as leading to meaning but as having meaning” (Fish, 1980:158).

33

This notion of members from a certain society interpreting texts in similar ways, inevitably leads

to the question of how those who are not part of the Christian community will interpret religious

themes in a novel. Non-religious readers could perceive the notions of sin, the fall and

redemption as foreign. However, Michael Edwards rightfully mentions that a proliferation of

novels follow this pattern regardless of whether the novel is a Christian novel or written by a

Christian writer. Edward (1984:12) says that literature is “drawn towards a Biblical reading of

life”. These are universal themes applicable to life in general and even a non-Christian will have

an intuitive understanding of such themes without connecting these to the Bible and subsequent

doctrines. This is because these themes constitute a pattern in our lives. The comprehension

of Biblical themes in contemporary novels is closely related to an individual‟s world view. Veith

(2002:123) aptly shows that Nancy Pearcy and Chuck Colson (authors of How now shall we

live?) apply a distinctly Christian paradigm to a world view: “Creation („Where did we come from

and who are we?‟); the Fall („What has gone wrong with the world?‟); Redemption („What can

we do to fix it?‟); Restoration („How now shall we live?‟).” They maintain that Christianity has

answers to these questions, but so do non-Christian and non-religious ways of thinking.

Christians may object to the fact that non-Christian writers utilize what they regard as exclusive

Christian themes. Eliot in his essay entitled “Religion and Literature” proposes a solution to the

Christian reader in that he has to be conscious of the gulf between himself and the greater part

of contemporary literature. He warns that “the greater part of our reading matter is written for us

by people who have no real belief in a supernatural order, though some of it may be written by

people with individual notions of a supernatural order which are not ours” (Eliot, 2002:207).

What is of importance though concerning both Fish‟s and Iser‟s concepts is that the reader does

not enter the text as a tabula rasa. The reader enters the text with many presuppositions and

preconceived ideas and has to construe meaning from what the writer offers to him/her. This

emphasis on the individual as part of a community has an influence on the way truth is

perceived. Every individual is a member of a certain community and because there is a

diversity of communities, there are many truths. Thus, the postmodern concept that truth is a

subjective feeling or notion can be seen in the way readers respond to texts. Roger Pooley

(1995:20) in The discerning reader: a Christian perspective on literature and theory makes a

valid statement when he says that the postmodern denouncing of grand narratives and thus

ultimate truths which explain everything has not “blunted the desire to find contingent narratives

which will explain something”. This sentiment is echoed by Cunningham (1995:51-52) when he

discusses canons and asserts that while it is proper for Christians to hope for the truth of a text,

the whole truth “is necessarily going to evade the interpretive grasp”.

What is interesting is the fact that Stanley Fish recognizes that the interpretation of a text, or

rather a reader‟s response to it, is self-revealing. Our responses serve as an indicator of what

we believe and have experienced. In other words, we discover things about ourselves like the

34

types of characters with whom we identify as opposed to those who repel us (Ryken, 2000:120).

This self-revelatory aspect of literature serves as a barometer to self-criticism and a subsequent

correction of our ways if necessary.

2.3.4 Leland Ryken

Leland Ryken‟s notions of the writer-reader-text relationship may be useful to those looking at

this relationship from a Christian point of view. He has a balanced view of who plays what role

in the reader-response theory and I agree that one cannot emphasize any one aspect more

than the other. Text, writer and reader are equally important in the process of interpretation.

Although some reader-centered criticism has endeavoured to disregard the writer completely,

he maintains: “we can profitably view the writer as our travelling companion through a work. As

readers we are not obliged to see only what our tour guide points to, but it would be foolish to

ignore a writer‟s presence in the work” (Ryken, 2000;88).

Ryken devised a diagram to show how readers approach literature. At the centre is the work

itself – the creation of the writer. The writer gathers material from the world, including the

words, images, settings, characters, events, and experiences that make up the work. Lastly,

the audience or reader absorbs the work. Although he believes that there is no single correct

way of approaching literature, he acknowledges the importance of reader-centred criticism

(Ryken, 2000:84).

Writer world

work

audience (Ryken, 2000:84)

Ryken elaborates on the influence that writers have on their audience and concurs that the

world view of writers play a decisive role in the portrayal of the human experience. Writers

choose their subject matter and their beliefs are woven into a work of literature. The study

briefly referred to the persuasive quality of literature earlier on and the fact that the novelists

discussed in this dissertation do not have as objective to persuade readers of a certain view, but

rather the explication of differing viewpoints. Ryken (2000:105) warns that Christian readers

should not avoid literature when taking into account the persuasive element of literature. He

proposes that Christian readers should remain alert at all times even when reading for

recreation. What is, however, of importance in this section is how readers respond to subject

matter. Ryken (2000:114-117) mentions the types of activities required from a reader while

reading: reading with imagination, reading as encounter, reading as discovery and reading as

recognition. By reading with imagination, he means that the reader must create a picture in his

own mind; reading as encounter points to characters, the narrator, human experience, the

35

physical world and ideas; reading as discovery refers to how the work is made, how the parts fit

together and how the themes unify the work; reading as recognition shows how we recognize

our own impulses and fears.

2.3.5 The search for truth

Postmodernism implies that there is no truth and therefore much of contemporary literature is

charged with nihilism. From a Christian point of view, to deny that there is any truth is to deny

that there is a God. Jeffrey and Maillet (2011:38) in their book, Christianity and literature:

philosophical foundations and critical practice, mention this modern tendency to see literary

works as “merely diversionary entertainment rather than as a source of cultural wisdom”. They

refer to Flannery O‟Connor‟s very cynical observation that wherever one lives in the West,

“nihilism has become the gas you breathe” (cited in Jeffrey & Maillet, 2011:38). These writers

continue to explore the question of finding truth in literature. According to them there are three

academic theories of truth: correspondence theory – a verbal claim can only be true if it

corresponds to definitive fact or external reality. This theory can be seen as having far-reaching

implications for Christianity in that it means in effect that what one does not see, does not exist.

In other words, how does one account for the truth value of religion when there is no scientific

basis apart from the perceptions of the individual. In contrast, Jeffrey and Maillet (2011:50)

argue that Christians have to accept the knowledge tradition of the church: “it is a matter of

conviction placed in a body of knowledge derived from credible testimony and tested by

personal experience, both our own and that of others, against and across time”. The second

theory is that of coherence theory – a claim may be seen as true if it is logically consistent with

the rest of the data. The third is called pragmatic theory – corresponding to common sense or

what works in a particular community. This theory is based on “a consensus social

construction.” Jeffrey and Maillet (2011:51-57) maintain that although pragmatic theory

dominates the contemporary scene, it invalidates and is incompatible with a Christian world

view. This notion leads to truth becoming relative, which in fact implies plurality, and should in

effect lead to tolerance. However, Jeffrey and Maillet believe that in time truth is forced by

those who are powerful in a community. This reminds of Friedrich Nietzsche‟s “will to power”.

Nietzsche (cited in Young, 2010:538) says “life itself is essentially a process of appropriation,

injuring, overpowering the alien and the weaker, oppressing, being harsh, imposing your own

form, incorporating, and at least, at the very least, exploiting”. He believed that humankind is

fundamentally driven to dominate. This argument of Jeffrey and Maillet makes sense that what

is perceived as truth in a community could become forced on weaker members and even lead to

fundamentalism. However, Christians remain part of interpretive communities and should also

therefore guard against becoming totalitarian or exclusive in their regard and search for truth.

Ironic is the fact that certain philosophers like Descartes and Spinoza, actually made possible

the nihilism and relativism prevalent in our times. They were seeking to fortify belief rather than

36

to discredit faith by proclaiming that reason builds a stronger foundation for faith than one

provided by the Church or Scripture (Lundin, 1993:246-247).

Vattimo, according to my mind offers the solution and that is caritas (love for one‟s neighbour),

and tolerance which ties in with his notion of weak thought. Postmodernism, in essence rejects

an absolute truth, but in its sensitivity towards difference actually allows tolerance towards

diversity. To be able to reach others, we must have an understanding of their feelings and

world views. Vattimo identifies Christ only with love and not with truth.

37

Chapter 3: Providence, Sacrifice and the Miraculous

3

A Prayer for Owen Meany – John Irving

3.1 Introduction

Graham Ward (2003:vii), in the introduction to True religion, says: “Religion is once more haunting

the imagination of the West”. This phenomenon is readily perceivable in John Irving‟s novel A

prayer for Owen Meany. The significance of the title and the epigraphs point towards a religious

interpretation prior to the manifestation of three Biblical themes, namely: providence, sacrifice and

the miraculous.

One of the aims of this dissertation is to indicate how Biblical themes are introduced, reshaped and

revitalized and this is exactly what Irving does. He writes without an institutional agenda, as

mentioned in the introduction to this dissertation. He is “not an avowedly „religious‟ novelist” (Tate,

2008:86). In the introduction to A prayer for Owen Meany, Irving (1989:16) states that: “many of

my readers assume I am religious. I go to church only occasionally – like a lot of people, I believe

in God in times of crisis”. Even though A prayer for Owen Meany is permeated predominantly by

secular space, the traditional Christian themes mentioned form an integral part of this space. The

character of Owen Meany is effectively portrayed as a modern Christ-like figure – a fact that is

elaborated on in the discussion of the theme of sacrifice. Irving highlights this feature in order to

influence the reader of this viewpoint. Another strategy Irving uses is the way in which he

contrasts Owen‟s faith with the faith of the other characters. No reader can remain indifferent to

the content after having read the novel. One is guided to have an opinion, whether one believes in

the supernatural or whether one deems oneself a completely rational being. Ryken (2000:59-60)

contends that we are as much symbolic creatures as rational ones and that we, as Christians, may

“appropriate religious truth with our imagination as well as with our intellect”.

When examining only the title of this novel, one realises that there are theological concepts at play.

Prayers are in essence associated with the religious, and are often mentioned and seem to be a

recurrent motif throughout the novel. The title refers to the continuous prayers for Owen Meany,

but of special significance is the prayer by Rev. Merrill Lewis during the school service after which

Owen is expelled by Randy White, the despised schoolmaster. The novel concludes with Johnny

Wheelwright saying the same prayer Owen said for Tabitha Wheelwright when she was

accidentally killed by a foul baseball that was hit by Owen. Johnny knows that this was Owen's

38

favourite prayer: "INTO PARADISE MAY THE ANGELS LEAD YOU," (Irving, 1989:720).2 Merrill

Lewis is also praying at the moment Owen hits the baseball: "- at that moment, my father told me,

he had prayed to God that my mother would drop dead!" (Irving, 1989:638). Pastor Merrill believes

later on that through this experience God has taught him not to trifle with prayer. Indeed, when he

prays to God the consequences are grave. Johnny, at first, remains oblivious to the reason Merrill

requests a silent prayer for Owen Meany at the school service. The reason becomes clear to

Johnny only later on: Merrill is certain that God answered his prayer when Tabitha was killed by the

baseball and she literally drops dead. He is therefore reluctant to pray because of his fear for a

repeat of this situation. This is rather comic, as it is almost certainly coincidental that Tabitha dies

immediately after Merrill has prayed. He is consumed with guilt and moral cowardice when he

realises that he is still attracted to Tabitha when she waves at him moments before her death.

Debra Shostak (1995:62) contends that the pun in the title is not just a prayer for the dead soul of

Owen, but it is also a prayer to "discover meaning that Owen Meany's name- and life- limn". At the

end of the novel Johnny prays for Owen‟s resurrection here on earth and not in heaven. Tate

(2008:89) sees this devotional ending in which hope for eternal salvation exists, in tension with the

everyday joy and pain of life in a fallen world as indicative of a “quasi-theological quest that informs

Irving‟s fiction in general”.

There are three epigraphs prior to chapter one which invoke our sense of the spiritual and which

confirm the reader's initial expectation of a religious reading after having read the title. The first of

the epigraphs is from the letter of Paul to the Philippians: “Have no anxiety about anything, but in

everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God”

(Irving, 1989:21).

The novel starts with this epigraph about the power of prayer. Tate (2008:89) sees parallels

between Johnny Wheelwright and the apostle Paul in that Paul wrote this prayer while imprisoned

and suffering, and Johnny communicates his religious conviction that came about with great

sorrow to a rather faithless United States. Johnny is disgusted at the moral degeneration of the

American society after the Vietnam invasion. This disillusionment with the human situation and the

ache for some sort of spirituality is one of the reasons Gianni Vattimo mentions for the return to

religion in contemporary society. Johnny Wheelwright becomes a Christian because of Owen

Meany, although his disenchantment with his world could also have contributed to his longing for

spirituality, albeit in his case a very rigid, doctrinal religion.

2 It should be noted that Owen Meany‟s words feature in capitals in this dissertation, as they are capitalized in the novel.

39

The second epigraph is about Buechner's (1926 - ) concept of belief in God. Buechner is

mentioned in the acknowledgements of Irving‟s novel where Irving states that he owes much of his

writing to his former teacher and mentor at Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire (Irving,

1989). Doubt is, according to Buechner, an essential element of faith. Irving took this epigraph

from Buechner's Alphabet: “Not the least of my problems is that I can hardly even imagine what

kind of an experience a genuine, self-authenticating religious experience would be. Without

somehow destroying me in the process, how could God reveal himself in a way that would leave

no room for doubt? If there were no room for doubt, there would be no room for me” (Irving,

1989:21). This extract emphasizes the struggle of postmodern society with the acceptance of

religion. Haynes (1995:73) contends that, theologically, what this question from Buechner

describes is "the problem of miracle”. In other words, he asks the question of whether a miracle is

acceptable to the modern mind. Irving seems to share Buechner's sentiments regarding doubt. In

A prayer for Owen Meany, Irving invents the character of Pastor Lewis Merrill, who is the epitome

of doubt. Johnny Wheelwright, however, finds Merrill the more theologically attractive of the two

spiritual leaders, Rev. Lewis Merrill and Rev. Dudley Wiggin from the Congregational and

Episcopalian Churches respectively:

What made Pastor Merrill infinitely more attractive was that he was full of doubt; he expressed our doubt in the most eloquent and sympathetic ways. In his completely lucid and convincing view, the Bible is a book with a troubling plot, but a plot that can be understood […] Pastor Merrill was most appealing because he reassured us that doubt was the essence of faith, and not faith's opposite (Irving,1989:147).

Irving seems to communicate the idea that it is possible to find God in the midst of doubt. His

perception of faith relies on the miraculous, according to Shostak. To prove this statement, she

uses a line from Irving that says: "I've always asked myself what would be the magnitude of the

miracle that could convince me of religious faith" (Shostak, 1995:63). One can agree with Shostak

that a miracle seems to be a requirement for faith, but the element of doubt is always present.

Irving (1989:16) says in his introduction to this novel that:

I have had no religious 'experience'; I've never been a witness to a miracle. The reason A prayer for Owen Meany has a first-person narrator is that you can't have a religious experience or witness a miracle except through the eyes of a believer. And the believer I chose, Johnny Wheelwright, has been so tormented by what happens to his best friend that he is more than a little crazy – as I expect most witnesses to so-called miracles are.

Although Irving states that it would take a miracle to convince him of religious belief, we detect a

certain scepticism in the above extract. There is a question mark regarding the sanity of those who

claim to have witnessed miracles. Mystics and those claiming to have been privy to the

supernatural have traditionally been regarded with suspicion. Irving both questions and affirms

40

faith at the same time. Page (1995:155) observes that Irving demonstrates the power of

transcendent faith and readers “are led to doubt, yet they are moved”. Readers may want to

believe in the miraculous at times, but also doubt the supernatural at other times. The fact that

doubt is acceptable is echoed in Martel‟s novel Life of Pi. Dr Kumar tells Picine that doubt is

permitted because even Christ had His moments of doubt:

Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross, „My God, My God, why have you forsaken me,‟ then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a means of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation (Martel, 2002:28).

Irving seems to reassure the readers hovering between unconditional, blind faith and belief that

occasional doubt is acceptable and necessary. Martel seems to drive home the point that doubt is

acceptable as long as one does not wallow in it. This reassurance is clear in Irving‟s novel when

we see that Pastor Merrill, a man of God, doubts his faith and God‟s forgiveness of his sins. This

is a quality that Johnny seems to admire in him. In fact, he is preferred to the Episcopalian

minister precisely because of this human quality. The reader is given the assurance that doubt is

acceptable and forms an intrinsic part of our lives. It is human to doubt and to question. Johnny

Wheelwright is not a believer at the beginning of the novel, but he gradually moves towards a very

structured faith after witnessing the miracle of Owen Meany‟s life. According to Peter Berger, the

shift in attitudes towards dissenting thought is “one of the major cultural changes that signify the

birth of modernity. For premodern man, heresy is a possibility – usually a rather remote one; for

modern man, heresy typically becomes a necessity” (cited in Bradley et al. 2010:64).

The third epigraph to this novel is from the French novelist, essayist and poet, Léon Bloy (1876 –

1917): “Any Christian who is not a hero is a pig” (Irving, 1989:21).

Leon Bloy grew up as an agnostic and had a deep hatred towards the Catholic Church and its

doctrines. After having met the Catholic author Barbey d'Aurevilly, who was his neighbour, he

underwent a religious conversion. A prayer for Owen Meany can be read as a Damascene

conversion narrative in which Johnny Wheelwright becomes a devout Anglican after a childhood of

apparent doubt and no strong religious beliefs. Thus, there is a parallel between Bloy and Johnny.

Owen Meany is the reason for Johnny‟s conversion. Owen believes in Divine Providence and that

he is an instrument in God's hands:

„I DON‟T WANT TO BE A HERO,‟ said Owen Meany. „IT‟S NOT THAT I WANT TO BE – IT'S THAT I AM A HERO. I KNOW THAT'S WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO BE.‟ „How do you know?‟ I asked him. „IT'S NOT THAT I WANT TO GO TO VIETNAM – IT'S WHERE I HAVE TO GO.‟ „IT'S WHERE I'M A HERO. I'VE GOT TO BE THERE,‟ he said. „Tell him how you 'know' this, you asshole!‟

41

Hester screamed at him. „THE WAY YOU KNOW SOME THINGS – YOUR OBLIGATIONS, YOUR DESTINY OR YOUR FATE,‟ he said. „THE WAY YOU KNOW WHAT GOD WANTS YOU TO DO‟ (Irving, 1989:557).

Owen‟s election and recurrent dreams are all brought together in the closing scene when he

emerges as the hero he believed he was all along. Owen is at the airport in Phoenix to deliver the

dead body of an American serviceman killed in Vietnam. He is there in the capacity of casualty

assistance officer. Dick Jarvits is the dead man‟s younger brother who is mentally disturbed and

obsessed by all the tales he has heard about the war and the prospect of killing members of the

Viet Cong. He plans to act out his revenge on Vietnamese children who happen to have just

arrived to a group of nuns from the Catholic Relief Service. One of the nuns asks Owen to

accompany the boys to a men‟s restroom inside the airport and Owen naturally agrees. Jarvits

then throws a grenade into the bathroom. He is representative of a person with a totalitarian

outlook, one without compassion and tolerance. He fails to recognize the actual enemy. Owen

saves the group of Vietnamese children from the hand-grenade by trapping it on a high ledge

inside the bathroom and thus completes his mission by sacrificing his life. Gianni Vattimo‟s

concept of caritas is what constitutes Owen‟s willingness to give up his life for the salvation of

others. Johnny assists Owen by lifting him up, and Owen dies a heroic death. Owen‟s obsession

with armlessness during the novel finally makes sense to the reader. Both his arms are missing

after the explosion of the grenade. We are reminded of his earlier words: “GOD HAS TAKEN MY

HANDS” (Irving, 1989:121). It is important to Owen to be awarded a medal, which is slightly out of

character. Owen never gives any indication of wanting any recognition as a hero. He is steadfast

in his conviction of being a hero and this seems to be enough: “IT‟S THAT I AM A HERO” (Irving,

1989:557). He, nevertheless, tells Johnny to ensure that he will get a medal for this sacrifice.

Irving reminds us that Owen, despite his God-like qualities, is human just like all of us and aspires

to some sort of recognition, albeit post-mortem. This human quality is what endears Owen to the

reader. He is awarded the Soldier‟s Medal, rating above the Bronze Star but below the Legion

Merit awarded for “heroism that involves the voluntary risk of life under conditions other than those

of conflict with an opposing armed force” (Irving, 1989:719).

3.2 Providence

Owen Meany firmly believes in God‟s Providence and throughout the novel there is no question for

him about the existence of coincidence or fate. Fate and Divine Providence are distinctly

contrasted. Johnny Wheelwright narrates Owen‟s unshakeable belief in Providence instead of

Owen giving direct evidence. Johnny is not always present at the scenes he describes and hence

his narration is based on speculation. Thus, this second-person narration leaves room for doubt.

Haynes (1995:78) says that the reader has an ambiguous image of Owen due to the fact that he

does not narrate his own story. Other characters‟ opinions regarding this pure faith in Providence

42

are also expressed via Johnny. This creates a constant doubt within the reader whether to believe

in the miraculous. The first encounter that we have with Owen‟s belief in Providence is after the

incident with the foul ball. Owen calls it: “THAT FATED BASEBALL” (Irving, 1989:137). He does

not see this as a random accident and Johnny only realises much later that Owen saw this incident

as part of God's Divine plan. Irving‟s work often employs black humour and in this novel his

approach to suffering is comical. As such this is a reshaping of traditional approaches to suffering.

Henry Jansen (2001:103) remarks that Irving “ultimately affirms life” and that he shows that despite

suffering life goes on. Jansen (2001:115) further states that the “humour serves to mitigate the

potentially tragic situation, to place the suffering in another perspective that allows the reader to

laugh while at the same time appreciating the „seriousness‟ of the situation”. This comic portrayal

of suffering may be seen by some as a marginalization thereof and perhaps as frivolity. Jansen

(2001:115-116), however, maintains that this relativization of suffering allows the reader to gain

some distance and this consequently leads to an acceptance of the suffering, even if only to a

certain degree. Such an approach is very true to real life in that there seems to be a constant

variation of tragedy and comedy. Postmodern people have to see the humour in tragedy as a

survival strategy in order to deal with life‟s many challenges. Paul Fiddes (1991:66-67) also sees

the comic approach as positive in that it brings peace after having caused disorder. He concurs

that “the surface of things has to be blown wide open by a joke in order to find the truth hidden

deep beneath”.

Owen‟s search for the sacred could be explained by his guilt after having killed his best friend‟s

mother. On a psychological level he could feel that he deserves punishment. This might eliminate

the possibility of Providence for the reader. Owen gives Johnny his prized baseball cards after the

incident as a way to say sorry, while Johnny gives him an armadillo, a much cherished possession,

given to him by Dan Needham. Eventually Owen sends the armadillo back, but with its claws

removed. Years later Johnny interprets this gesture and this is what Owen (and the armadillo)

said: “GOD HAS TAKEN YOUR MOTHER. MY HANDS WERE THE INSTRUMENTS. GOD HAS

TAKEN MY HANDS. I AM GOD‟S INSTRUMENT” (Irving, 1989:121).

This sounds syllogistic, but according to Dan, Owen feels as if he has lost a part of himself with

Tabitha‟s death and by removing the armadillo‟s claws, Owen feels that he “might obliterate his

own hands, the agents of that death” (Shostak, 1995:66). Owen feels that Johnny and he are both

mutilated and maimed by what has happened to them. However, at this stage, Johnny is still a

sceptic and his questions surrounding the possibility of Owen‟s certainty of being a Chosen One,

are also indicative of the reader‟s scepticism. Johnny relates: “That Owen Meany was a Chosen

One was the furthest thing from my mind; that Owen could even consider himself one of God‟s

appointed would have been a surprise to me […] but Owen‟s idea – that God‟s reasoning was

43

somehow predetermining Owen‟s every move – came from much more than that one unlucky

swing and crack of the bat” (Irving, 1989:121). Irving highlights the religious themes he employs by

continuously contrasting those themes with their counterparts. In other words, when manifesting

the belief in Providence in one character, he would let the belief in fate manifest in another

character. It is never just a straightforward, rigid, one-sided advocation of religious themes. This is

a strategy to keep the doubt that pervades the postmodern scene alive.

The first time Owen and Johnny experience The Flying Yankee, the express train, speeding over

their heads, is during Christmas 1953. Although they have witnessed the train before, they have

never been directly below it when it passes through Gravesend, their hometown. Johnny

comments on the coincidence of their having been there at the precise time the train passed:

„What a coincidence!‟ I said, when The Flying Yankee had gone; I mean that it was a far-fetched piece of luck that had landed us under the trestle bridge precisely at noon, but Owen smiled at me with his especially irritating combination of mild pity and mild contempt. Of course, I know that Owen didn‟t believe in coincidences. Owen Meany believed that „coincidence‟ was stupid, shallow refuge sought by stupid, shallow people who were unable to accept the fact that their lives were shaped by a terrifying and awesome design – more powerful and unstoppable than The Flying Yankee (Irving, 1989:234).

Owen‟s tirade here regarding those who do not believe in providence is ironically very totalitarian.

Owen rebels against the strictures of the Catholic Church, but is also guilty of labelling those

whose views differ from his in a derogatory way. Vattimo calls this strong thought that should be

avoided in order to allow for pluralism. Interesting is the use of a paradox in describing this design.

It is both “terrifying” and “awesome” at the same time. This could be indicative of the fear he has

for God or/and his reverence for God. He sees God as both good and evil. Weaver (2011:616-

617) in an article entitled “Owen Meany as atonement figure: how he saves” concurs that A prayer

for Owen Meany addresses the fundamental and [postmodern] question of how to reconcile the

idea of a good and omnipotent God with the existence of evil in the world. He examines

atonement images in detail based on the entire range of traditional images of Christus Victor,

where the devil is believed to have held the souls of humankind captive and God handed Jesus

over as a ransom payment to Satan, up to where there was a cosmic battle between Satan and

God. During this struggle, the devil killed God‟s son, but the resurrection is seen as God‟s victory

over evil. Weaver also discusses the theory of satisfaction atonement imagery in detail. This

ultimately comes down to the fact that God had Jesus killed in order to satisfy a divine need and to

show love to the rest of God‟s children, namely us. Some critics believe that this satisfaction

theory proves that God sanctions violence and the abuse of an innocent. Weaver (2011:623)

comes to the conclusion that Owen Meany‟s death resembles the satisfaction atonement image.

In other words, Owen‟s death is similar to the death of Jesus in that they both suffered for the

benefit of others. However, of importance is the fact that Weaver mentions a new narrative

44

atonement image which is non-violent and in which the role of God is not to order death or to use

it, but rather to overcome it. This immediately links up with Vattimo‟s emphasis on Heidegger‟s

Verwindung (overcoming) of metaphysical violence. The end of Being marked the beginning of

true religion. Through the resurrection evil is overcome. De Vries (1989:30) comments that “Irving

invites the reader to consider the wonder of God‟s involvement in human affairs. Falling into the

hands of God doesn‟t result in a life of pleasure and ease […] Instead, it means, as Bonhoeffer

(cited in De Vries, 1989:30) claims, that when Christ calls people, he bids them to come die”. The

postmodern concept of both/and, rather than either/or is apparent here. Owen has both reverence

for God, and at the same time fear. He is certain of his calling and has a „tenacious faith‟ as Irving

(1989:17) calls it, but he shows a human side when he also fears the unknown.

There are many incidents that cause the reader to speculate about the role of fate/Providence:

Merrill‟s regaining of his faith, the misplaced body at Phoenix, the death of Lydia (Harriet

Wheelwright‟s companion and Owen‟s vision of the date of his death on the tombstone). For

example, Pastor Merrill‟s conversion is brought about by a joke played on him by Johnny. Johnny

makes Merrill believe that he has seen the “ghost” of his former lover, Tabitha Wheelwright, when

he has in fact seen the dressmaker‟s dummy which Johnny placed in the shadows of the church.

Johnny throws the “fated baseball” through the window of the vestry office while Merrill is praying.

This incident causes Merrill to regain his faith and as a result he loses his stutter. Page (1995:147)

calls this lack of faith, a lack “manifested by his stutter”. Before this incident, Merrill is unable to

come to terms with his brief infidelity with Tabitha Wheelwright. Johnny is the product of this affair.

As a result of this guilt, Merrill has lost his religious fervour and has many doubts. According to

Johnny, Pastor Merrill cuts a rather pathetic character in contrast with his mother, Tabitha: “But the

Rev. Mr Merrill was a man who took to wallowing in guilt; his remorse, after all, was all he had to

cling to” (Irving, 1989:640). The scene is comic, but Merrill comes to see some truth, as Fiddes

(1991:67) mentions, in that he overcomes his extreme guilt regarding his adulterous affair. In this

sense, comedy brings healing.

Johnny believes that the closest Rev. Merrill can come to God, is through his remorse for his sin

with Tabitha. Tate (2008:93) observes that explicit themes and motifs, from Nathaniel Hawthorne‟s

The Scarlet Letter (1850) have been reworked into the novel, such as sin and guilt. Irving uses

these themes from the Ur-text and revitalizes them by drawing parallels between certain

characters. This proves Edward‟s theory that most novels follow the pattern of creation, fall and

redemption (Edwards, 1984:2). Johnny Wheelwright has a fairly happy childhood even though he

does not know his father. His friendship with Owen and their boyish adventures create a picture of

an Eden. This bliss is shattered when his mother is killed in a freak accident. According to Owen

Meany, he is the sinner who needs to redeem himself. This incident places Owen on his mission

45

towards redemption. Owen is redeemed when he atones for his sin by dying a sacrificial death.

Johnny is gradually introduced to sin (the fall) when he finally learns of his mother and Rev.

Merrill‟s adultery. He loses Owen and only then reconstructs his life around his religion. He is a

soul who searches for the ineffable all his life. These very same motifs are apparent in The scarlet

letter, but Irving employs them with a modern slant. The stuttering Merrill reminds of a guilt-ridden

Arthur Dimmesdale who “sinned” with Hester Prynne. Both these remorseful priests conceived

illegitimate children with their mistresses. There are quite obvious parallels between the two

Congregational priests, but one can also detect a fundamental difference. Irving revitalizes the

theme of guilt in that the erring human is portrayed in a humorous light instead of him being seen

as a lost soul beyond redemption. The portrayal of Merrill is mostly comical, unlike that of

Dimmesdale, who evokes the sympathy of the reader when he confesses his utter loathing of

himself: “He had told his hearers that he was altogether vile, a viler companion of the vilest, the

worst of sinners, an abomination, a thing of unimaginable iniquity; and that the only wonder was

that they did not see his wretched body shriveled up before their eyes, by the burning wrath of the

Almighty!” (Hawthorne, 1905:166). Merrill never mentions the wrath of God, whereas Dimmesdale

fears God‟s vengeance. This is, of course, typical of the nineteenth-century thought where God

was seen as a vengeful God. There was no means by which damnation and doom could be

avoided: “„The judgement of God is on me,‟ answered the conscience-stricken priest. „It is too

mighty for me to struggle with!‟” (Hawthorne, 1905:229).

Johnny and the reader are somewhat disgusted at this new-found faith brought about by a staged

miracle. Ironically, the miracle of Owen‟s death could not move Merrill to believe in the

supernatural, but a staged miracle could. One can concur with Tate (2008:99) that this revival of

faith suggests that even rational beings, like Merrill, might become subject to the supernatural.

The inevitable question arises: was his faith superficial to begin with? This conversion narrative

renders the reader sceptical about Merrill‟s deep devotion to God as a clergyman: “I was thinking

that my father was quite a fake; after all, he had met the miracle of Owen Meany, face to face, and

still hadn‟t believed in him – and now he believed everything, not because of Owen Meany but

because I had tricked him. I had fooled him with a dressmaker‟s dummy” (Irving, 1989:666).

Could this be a subtle suggestion by Irving that a theological foundation is no guarantee for real

faith?

The next incident that might be seen as either coincidental or as the result of Providence is Owen‟s

sacrificial death, which he has imagined countless times in his dreams. This incident is rendered

possible only when a body is misplaced and Owen is assigned the task to deliver it to Phoenix.

Owen believed all along that he would die a hero in Vietnam, but his opportunity for ultimate

sacrifice comes in circumstances that he has not imagined or foreseen. This is Irving‟s way of

46

reminding the reader that nothing is certain. Irving did not create an Űbermensch in Owen Meany.

He is very human in his confusion to know the truth of his destiny. Not even Owen, with his

unfaltering faith, could know for certain how and when he would fulfil his Divine Calling:

THERE‟S SO MUCH I KNOW, he wrote, BUT I DON‟T KNOW EVERYTHING. ONLY GOD KNOWS EVERYTHING. THERE ISN‟T TIME FOR ME TO GET TO VIETNAM. I THOUGHT I KNEW I WAS GOING THERE. I THOUGHT I KNEW THE DATE, TOO. BUT IF I‟M RIGHT ABOUT THE DATE, THEN I‟M WRONG ABOUT IT HAPPENING IN VIETNAM. AND IF I‟M RIGHT ABOUT VIETNAM, THEN I‟M WRONG ABOUT THE DATE. IT‟S POSSIBLE THAT IT REALLY IS „JUST A DREAM‟ – BUT IT SEEMS SO REAL! (Irving, 1989:684).

Owen‟s belief in the Will of God in everything is sharply contrasted with the comments of the other

characters narrated through Johnny. Owen‟s commitment to this ultimate mandate frustrates his

friends, who fall outside this certainty of the modern-day mystic. Johnny, himself a sceptic at first,

is annoyed at and at times jealous of Owen‟s certainty about his destiny: “[…] he believed more

than I did, I was always aware of this” (Irving, 1989:47). Johnny, like Jesus‟ disciples, reacts with

perplexity at this knowledge that Owen has of his impending fate. This irritation is indicative of the

misunderstanding of the mystic. Johnny only begins to understand that Owen was part of

something much greater in the decades following Owen‟s death. Johnny eventually understands

that God was the one who called Owen to substitute his life for the lives of the Vietnamese

orphans. His conversion narrative and his search for “the other” is a sub-plot in the novel. Thus,

Johnny is irritated at Owen‟s claim that all is part of God‟s Providence and that there is a certain

pattern: “From what nonsense did Owen Meany discern what he would later call a PATTERN?

From his feverish imagination? Years later, when he would refer to THAT FATED BASEBALL, I

corrected him impatiently. „That accident, you mean,‟ I said” (Irving, 1989:137).

Johnny‟s grandmother, Harriet Wheelwright, is always critical of Owen Meany. She comments that

Owen is possessed and that he has “unlikeable powers” (Irving, 1989:305). However, she believes

that Owen foresaw Lydia‟s death the night of the Christmas Pageant. Owen is cast as Scrooge in

the Dickensian play, A Christmas carol. Although Scrooge was a mean and avaricious man and

Owen Meany a benefactor in society, they both had to redeem themselves for sins during their

lifetime. Scrooge in Dickens‟s novel was shown his final legacy by the Ghost of Christmas yet to

come – a neglected and cheap grave. This upsets him and he begs for a second chance. Owen is

aware of the sacrifice he has to make and is shown the exact date when this sacrifice will be

fulfilled. Scrooge repents his ways and is granted a second chance to atone for his sins when he

wakes up and finds that all was just a dream. Owen Meany needs to atone for the death of

Tabitha Wheelwright and he believes that being God‟s instrument will provide the opportunity to

sacrifice his life. Owen actually sees his own name on the tombstone instead of Scrooge‟s during

the play, but he omits one small detail – the date. He does not tell Johnny that the date was on the

47

tombstone as well. Johnny wrestles with the question: “Are these the shadows of the things that

will be or are they shadows of the things that May be, only?” (Irving, 1989:311). Owen deliberately

keeps this detail from Johnny. This could be because he is aware of Johnny‟s scepticism

regarding this vision and sees no need to upset his friend any further or he is so shocked when

confronted with the reality that there is a moment of doubt about the meaning of this vision. Irving

reinforces the prescience that Owen has and his ominous warnings are emphasized. Dan places

his arms around Owen and hugs him: “Owen, Owen – it‟s part of the story! You‟re sick, you have a

fever!” (Irving, 1989:299). When Johnny has arrived home after the pageant, he finds that Lydia,

his grandmother‟s companion for years, has died. Dan Needham says: “„Owen forsaw absolutely

nothing,‟[…] „He must have had a fever of a hundred and four! The only power he has is the power

of his imagination‟” (Irving, 1989:305). Dan Needham, although an open-minded character in the

novel, refuses to entertain the possibility of the supernatural. This is a form of deconstruction, as

the reader would have expected him of all people to believe in Owen Meany‟s uncanny abilities.

Johnny actually begins to entertain the idea that there must be some truth in this vision of Owen:

“„If that gravestone actually told you anything; it told you that someone was going to die. That

someone was Lydia‟” […] “„Look at it this way: you have got it half right,‟” I told him” (Irving,

1989:310).

Johnny finds solace in this conclusion because he is unable to imagine a life without Owen.

Hester, with whom Owen has an on-and-off relationship, becomes quite aggressive one evening

when Owen relates his dream about saving Vietnamese children to her and Johnny. She regards

his obsession to join the army as absurd: “She gripped the damp, pale-yellow towel and rolled it

tightly into what we used to call a „rat‟s tail.‟ She snapped the towel very close to Owen Meany‟s

face, but Owen didn‟t move. „That‟s it, isn‟t it? You asshole!‟ she yelled at him […] „You think God

wants you to go to Vietnam – don‟t you?‟” (Irving, 1989:561). Henry Jansen (2001:119) remarks

that Hester is, like Johnny, unable to move on after the loss of Owen Meany as she wants to see

the point in all the suffering. Jansen (2001:33-40) seems to believe that there is no point in

suffering and that it is futile to search for the reasons. He mentions the three different approaches

to suffering as: firstly, it is inexplicable because the world was created good and evil is an intrusion;

secondly, that suffering is a consequence of sin according to the concept of original sin and thirdly,

that there is hope beyond suffering.

The most compelling evidence to prove Owen‟s belief in Divine Providence is a copy of St Thomas

Aquinas‟ (1225-1274) – Demonstration of God’s existence from motion, which Johnny finds in

Owen‟s duffel bag after his death. Owen has underlined the passage about the first mover: “Of

course, if an infinite series of movers and things moved were possible, with no first mover, then the

whole infinity of movers and things moved would be instruments. Now, it is ridiculous, even to

48

unlearned people, to suppose that instruments are moved but not by any principal agent” (Irving,

1989:628).

This passage must have been an inspiration to Owen, confirming his belief in a divine intelligence,

a supreme Grand Designer to account for intelligent purpose or order. Aquinas believed that

something caused the universe to exist – that something or someone is God. Similarly, Owen

believes that without God, nothing can exist; God is the first mover.

Irving‟s concept of humankind‟s destiny as controlled by God, manifested through the beliefs of

Owen Meany, has not escaped criticism. In an article, “God‟s Own Little Squirt”, Kazin (1989:30)

argues that the concept of freewill is denied and he calls this astrology. He continues to say that

there “is something much too cute about Owen‟s conviction that since he can foretell so much he

must be God‟s instrument. It never occurs to John Wheelwright, the devoted Anglican in Canada,

that his prophet Owen is caricaturing Calvinist predestination in the role of fortune-teller”.

However, Eisenstein‟s view that Owen‟s sacrifice is “a genuinely free act motivated by faith, a

passionate act that wills an end for its own sake” seems much more persuasive (Eisenstein,

2006:10). The fact that Owen Meany claims not to want to be a hero actually proves that it is a

free act because wanting would imply that he is motivated by “something desirable, by the specter

of compensation, and is thus not acting freely” (Eisenstein, 2006:10). As evidence, Eisenstein

refers to Owen repudiating this very idea of doing good because a reward is expected. Mrs

Walker, the Sunday school teacher, reads to them from Matthew 5:5: “Blessed are the meek, for

they shall inherit the earth” (Irving, 1989:186).

Owen argues that there is no evidence for this. Mrs Walker continues to remind of the fact that the

pure at heart will see God. Owen calls this: “GOODNESS AS BRIBERY” (Irving, 1989:186). In

other words, Owen does not believe that his sacrificing his life will be rewarded, but his faith in this

divine mission is a leap based on inward vision and intuition. Page (1995:138), in an article

entitled “Hero Worship and Hermeneutical Dialectics: John Irving‟s A Prayer for Owen Meany”,

discusses Paul Ricoeur‟s concept of explanation and understanding. The former consists of

“external facts to observe, hypotheses to be submitted to empirical verification, general laws for

covering such facts”. The latter, in contrast, is “the non-methodic moment in which one holistically

discovers meaning: in understanding we comprehend or grasp as a whole the chain of partial

meaning in one act of synthesis; rather than focusing on external facts”. Page (1995:143)

continues by arguing that a question such as how Owen has foreknowledge of his coming death,

“cannot be investigated through the methodical process of explanation, but require the other

traditional way of discovering meaning – in Ricoeur‟s terminology, understanding, and in the

novel‟s terms, faith”. The conclusion Page reaches is that there is a blending of these two modes,

explanation and understanding/faith. Johnny has an intuitive feeling that his mother waved to his

49

biological father just before she was struck by the baseball and Owen tells him that he must be on

the right track because the idea gave him “THE SHIVERS.” Thus, one has knowledge because

one believes and “experiences an uncontrollable, unshareable physiological response, such as the

shivers, which is a recurrent indication of this blending of the two modes” (Page, 1995:145).

Irving seems to offer a play between these two modes of knowing and through this he urges the

reader to be cautious of reliance on any single position. To conclude, the Janus face of

fate/Providence is subtly played with or presented in this novel, but no final answer is offered.

Whether it is coincidence or Providence at work in the life of Owen Meany remains an open

question. There is no scientific proof, but this does not mean that Providence is not responsible for

the miracle. Lyotard believes that the mind cannot always organize the world rationally. He

believes that scientific knowledge does not represent the totality of knowledge, but has always

existed in competition and conflict with other forms of knowledge, which he calls „narratives‟

(Lyotard, 1984:7). As stated in the thesis statement of this dissertation, the reader creates his/her

own space for interpretation and this interpretation is subject to the world view of the reader. This

concept is not as uncomplicated as it sounds. This knowledge or world view is contextual and

influenced by many factors such as culture, tradition, language, sex and environment. This

corresponds to Fish‟s idea that we are all part of interpretative communities. Fish (1980:133)

furthermore argues that this does not mean that all members of a community will interpret texts in

the same way because we are all members of many interpretive communities at the same time.

This may lead to the convictions shared by each community of which an individual is a member

coming into conflict, which in turn demands negotiation. Ryken (2000:87) contends that “the fact

that writers have something to say results in a persuasive element in literature”. Irving, to my mind,

does not try to influence the reader of the legitimacy of a grand narrative, nor does he refute the

existence of a Providential Figure. One can conclude that Irving supports Lyotard‟s view that there

are no big stories but only small legitimate narratives of which the existence of a Providential

Figure is but one.

3.3 Sacrifice

To understand the manifestation of Owen‟s personal sacrifice in A prayer for Owen Meany, one

has to recognise the parallels between Owen Meany and Christ. Like Jesus of Nazareth, Owen‟s

parents are of humble origin. Owen is the son of a craftsman and he learns from his father the

trade of stonemasonry. All Owen‟s words are capitalized in the novel. Irving responded to a

question asking whether the capital letters mark Owen as a Christ figure, by saying that they sort of

do and that the red-lettering of Christ‟s spoken utterances in many printed editions of The New

Testament has been too expensive for his publishers (Irving, 1989:17). The capital letters indicate

that Owen‟s words are noteworthy. Is he the voice of God? The reader is constantly reminded of

50

Owen‟s otherworldliness. The most memorable aspect about him is his voice. Johnny comments

that: “I used to think his voice came from another planet. Now I‟m convinced it was a voice not

entirely of this world” (Irving, 1989:27). Owen seems to illuminate light and an uncanny

supernatural aura: “He was the color of a gravestone; light was both absorbed and reflected by his

skin, as with a pearl, so that he appeared translucent at times – especially at his temples, where

his blue veins showed through his skin” (Irving, 1989:25). Johnny comments on Owen‟s

otherworldliness as he reminisces about them practising the shot: “when I actually lifted him up, I

always felt I was handling a creature that was not exactly human, or not quite real. I wouldn‟t have

been surprised if he had twisted in the air, in my hands, and bitten me; or if – after I‟d lifted him –

he‟d just kept on flying” (Irving, 1989:557). Irving employs humour again to emphasise the fact that

Owen is different. He is not portrayed in a serious light, but this does not detract from him as a

convincing character. Taylor‟s notion of the language describing the supernatural being reduced to

parody can be a point of argument here (2010). After Owen‟s death, Mr Meany tries to explain

Owen‟s Immaculate Conception to Johnny by telling him that Owen wasn‟t natural, that he wasn‟t

born naturally, but like the Christ-Child born from a virginal birth. Johnny replies that Owen was

indeed special. All these references to Owen‟s supernatural qualities prepare the reader for the

final interpretation of Owen as a Christ-like figure which culminates in his sacrificing his life for

others. Very explicit is Vattimo‟s concept of caritas here in that Owen gives up his life for the sake

of others. Jansen (2001:221) comments on the fact that both Irving and Iris Murdoch emphasize

“the need for looking beyond the individual, for putting one‟s individual suffering into some sort of

wider context, for relativizing the self.” This brings us to Vattimo‟s kenosis which can be seen in

the character of Owen Meany when he sacrifices his life for others and by implication relativizes

the self.

Owen‟s parents believe that he was conceived immaculately and this caused the Catholics to

commit an “UNSPEAKABLE OUTRAGE”. It is only revealed much later what that outrage was –

the Catholics refused to believe this story of Owen never being conceived: “„[…] they made us feel

if we was blasphemin‟ the Bible, like we was tryin‟ to make up our own religion, or something‟”

(Irving, 1989:630).

Johnny calls Owen‟s parents “monsters of superstition” and comments that they “were dupes of the

kind of hocus-pocus that the television evangelists call „miracles‟ (Irving, 1989:630). Irving uses

characterization to cast doubt on the credibility of the Meanys‟ claim. Mrs Meany seems to be

catatonic and Johnny‟s perception of her is less than flattering. He calls her crazy and believes

that she might even be retarded or completely oblivious to the means by which she became

pregnant. In complete contrast to Mrs Meany, Owen is a convincing character and he believes this

story about his own virgin birth. The reader is baffled as to how Owen can possibly believe such

51

an outrageous story, but at the same time the reader might, inspired by Owen, entertain this

possibility. This concept of a virgin birth has come in for criticism from John Sykes, who argues

that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ has been understood by Nicene Christianity as an unrepeatable

event. Logically a second virgin birth would imply a second saviour and this will refute the

Christian Church‟s claim that Jesus Christ is adequate for our salvation (Sykes, 1996:64). Sykes‟s

argument regarding Owen‟s redemption is thin. He contends that Owen‟s redemption is not

universal in scope and that the salvation he brings has no effect beyond his small circle (Sykes,

1996:65). This might be true but it seems to be a counter-argument for Jesus‟ teaching that saving

one lost sheep is worth the while. Why indeed must an act of salvation be universal in scope to be

worthy? Owen is also referred to as the Chosen One, angel, devil, Antichrist, holy man, martyr,

prophet, bird, water bug, mouse and fox. According to Page (1995:141), these metaphors suggest

“the impossibility of any consistent explanation of Owen”. This mystery surrounding Owen ties in

with the postmodern concept of belief in the ineffable, the inability to find ultimate meaning and the

concept of the open-endedness of interpretation, the making use of a surplus of meaning in

postmodern texts. This inability to pin-point Owen, this sublime quality that he seems to have, may

confirm his Christ-like qualities. We are reminded of Kant‟s belief that we can never form an

adequate concept of God. “As Kant sees it, the most we can do, then, is speculate about that

which is beyond experience” (Eisenstein, 2006:1). Lyotard‟s concept of the postmodern being

“witness to the unpresentable” comes into play here in the inability to understand the character of

Owen Meany or to pinpoint his exact significance.

Owen is cast as the Christ-Child in The Christmas Pageant of 1953. Johnny comments that his

friend‟s performance left him with an unforgettable “vision of the little Lord Jesus as a born victim,

born raw, born bandaged, born angry and accusing” (Irving, 1989:278). According to Tate

(2008:97) this comic nativity play deconstructs the fantasy of sentimental accounts of Christ‟s birth

and hence this Biblical story once again shocks the reader. “The miraculous is not sweet and

reassuring but alienating and strange.” Irving uses what is to some the old Biblical [meta]narrative

and to some the truth in a revitalized form. The humour might be offensive to some, but the

deconstruction has exactly the effect that Tate observes, namely to remind the reader that the

miraculous is not always as we expect it to be – all joyful. Parallels also extend to Jesus‟ later life.

Owen is loved by those close to him, just like Christ was worshipped by his disciples. Jesus

preached against those who use their positions of power to oppress the masses and Owen rebels

against the establishment. This reminds of Vattimo‟s criticism against totalitarian world views

prevalent in institutions such as educational institutions, the state and Church. Owen attends

Gravesend Academy together with Johnny and weekly publishes essays in The Grave, the

school‟s newspaper. He becomes notorious for his scathing essays and articles which are

published under the name, “The Voice.” Owen also becomes unpopular with many as he

52

continuously questions decisions made by the headmaster, Mr White. At one stage, Owen

supplies the boys at Gravesend Academy with false draft cards and because White vested all the

power of decision making in the hands of The Executive Committee, a conviction is secured.

Johnny comments on this: “But The Executive Committee crucified Owen Meany – they axed him;

they gave him the boot; they threw him out” (Irving, 1989:474). Cupitt (1998:3) in his book,

Mysticism after Modernity, comments on the struggle of the individual, and specifically the mystic,

to be granted an opportunity to express him or herself. He maintains that faith and religion became

institutionalized and everything was subjected to doctrine and no ideas contrary to that were

accepted. According to Cupitt (1998:4) “the religious authorities control truth and see themselves

as having a clear duty to put down error”. Vattimo also stresses the fact that postmodern religion

has little to do with strict doctrine, but more with love for one‟s neighbour. Owen Meany is expelled

because of his anti-establishment ideas. His school is not a church, but an institution closely

connected to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Randy White sees Owen as the anti-Christ

spreading dangerous stories and subsequently sees it as his duty to silence Owen‟s voice of

dissent.

The word “crucified” is of particular significance and echoes Christ‟s Crucifixion at the hands of the

Jewish Council. Another striking parallel between Christ and Owen are recurrent references to the

resurrection. Haynes (1995:79) mentions a few of these references to death: the name of the

town, Gravesend; Gravesend High School; Owen‟s pen name, The Voice from the Grave and The

Grave, the name of the student paper. Owen serves as casualty assistance officer in the military

and comments: „I‟M IN THE DYING BUSINESS‟ (Irving, 1989:707). The novel is also saturated

with tomb imagery and Haynes mentions: “The Meany shop which is a monument shop; the

underground quarry; the coffin-shaped airport window and also the setting of the final event which

is in Phoenix, Arizona” (Haynes, 1995:80). This reference to Phoenix is particularly appropriate as

it reminds one of the myths and the symbol of immortality and re-incarnation. Irving effectively

employs words with religious connotations to strengthen religious themes. The implication is that

through Owen‟s death, life is given to the Vietnamese orphans and that Owen‟s soul will remain

immortal. Johnny also finds a pencil sketch of a phoenix in Owen‟s diary, accompanied by a note

about rebirth and immortality. Tate (2008:103) asserts that “this diary extends the motif of

resurrection as it literally allows Owen to speak from the grave, to be revivified in words”. Just like

Christ, Owen is aware of the time of his death. Johnny visits the Meany monument shop after

Owen‟s death and is at first outraged at the fact that Mr Meany wants him to see Owen‟s

gravestone. He then realises that Owen had finished his own gravestone more than half a year

before he died. The date corresponded with the date Owen had seen on Scrooge‟s gravestone –

July 8, 1968. After Owen‟s death, Johnny claims that Owen made two appearances to him. This

may seem far-fetched to many readers, but these appearances had a profound impact on Johnny.

53

The comic element is once again brought in to remind the reader that the miraculous can be

expected anywhere. These appearances invoke acceptance and a belief in the supernatural or the

improbable. Dan Needham plays a prank on Johnny and locks him inside Harriet Wheelwright‟s

eerie secret passageway. As Johnny is about to lose his balance and plunge down the stairway,

he feels a strong hand guiding his hand to the light switch and he hears Owen‟s voice: “In less than

a second, I imagined how Dan would discover my body on the dirt floor at the foot of the stairs –

when a small, strong hand (or something like a small, strong hand) guided my own hand to the

light switch […] And his voice – it was unmistakably Owen‟s voice – said: „DON‟T BE AFRAID‟”

(Irving, 1989:607). The other time when Johnny feels Owen‟s presence is when he has a

conversation with Pastor Merrill about the late Owen Meany the day before his funeral. The

atmosphere is rather uncanny with Merrill sitting in the dark vestry office and when he tries to

speak, he stutters and finally speaks with the voice of Owen Meany: “It was Merrill‟s mouth that

formed the words, but it was Owen Meany‟s voice that spoke to me: „“LOOK IN THE THIRD

DRAWER, RIGHT-HAND SIDE‟” (Irving, 1989:636).

Merrill, with a force not his own, rips the drawer too far open and Johnny sees the baseball rolling

across the stone floor. At this moment, Johnny knows that Merrill is his father. Johnny‟s own

prayers are answered when he finds out who his real father is. His own search, which forms a

sub-plot in the novel, comes to an end. He is disappointed that it is Merrill, whom he regards as a

wimp and to whom religion is only a career. Irving here may be reminding the reader that one

should not place too much hope in earthly fathers who are fallible, but should trust in our heavenly

Father, like Owen did. Maybe this serves as warning to the reader that the truth is not always

pleasant or what we expect. Owen always told Johnny that God would reveal to him who his father

was. The truth is revealed through the supernatural. Is Irving trying to convince the reader that the

miraculous can happen in mundane circumstances? Sykes (1996:62) observes that “Irving seems

to want to leave the hair standing up on our heads – to convince us that we have been in the

presence of a spiritual reality beyond the ken of sense experience.”

At Sunday school the children used to lift Owen up in the air. This was because of his diminutive

size and of course the fact that he became highly agitated. This lifting up of Owen is symbolic of

Christ‟s resurrection (Haynes, 1995:80). It was an act that humiliated Owen while at Sunday

school, but it also culminates in Owen sacrificing his life for the Vietnamese children when he is

lifted into the air by Johnny to prevent the hand-grenade from exploding close to the children by

trapping it against the high window in the airport bathroom. This shot has been practised by Owen

and Johnny numerous times before. Johnny has to lift Owen into the air in order for him to place

the ball through the net. This slam dunk shot is practised over and over again and they endeavour

to improve the time in which it is done every time:

54

He had sunk the shot in under four seconds „YOU SEE WHAT A LITTLE FAITH CAN DO?‟ said Owen Meany. The brain-damaged janitor was applauding. „SET THE CLOCK TO THREE SECONDS!‟ Owen told him. „Jesus Christ!‟ I said. „IF WE CAN DO IT IN UNDER FOUR SECONDS, WE CAN DO IT IN UNDER THREE,‟ he said. „IT JUST TAKES A LITTLE MORE FAITH.‟ „It takes more practice,‟ I told him irritably. „FAITH TAKES PRACTICE,‟ said Owen Meany (Irving, 1989:408).

Irving perhaps simultaneously reveals his own position here as well as that of postmodern people

to whom faith does not come easily, but “takes practice”.

The importance of this slam dunk shot only becomes apparent later on in the novel. It is always

practised in very ordinary circumstances with mostly the brain-damaged janitor as witness. Irving

suggests to the reader that the miraculous does not occur in otherworldly circumstances where

everything is perfect. Shostak (1995:61), in an article entitled “Plot as narrative: John Irving‟s

narrative experiments”, maintains that this novel offers patterns of repetition that serve as elements

in a providential plan. This repetition of elements such as the shot builds the case for

foreknowledge gradually so that the reader can assimilate the material, and find the miracle at the

end and for everything to make sense eventually. Thus, Irving subtly plays with the reader‟s

awareness. This repetition which culminates into an explanation later on, seems to confirm

Owen‟s foreknowledge and renders it credible.

Easter is the event on which Christianity bases its belief in the resurrection of Christ. According to

Owen, Easter is of great importance and the main event for a Christian: “„IF YOU DON‟T BELIEVE

IN EASTER,‟ Owen Meany Said, „DON‟T KID YOURSELF – DON‟T CALL YOURSELF A

CHRISTIAN‟ ” (Irving, 1989:338).

Owen finds great comfort in the fact that he will live again. In his last diary entry he writes:

“„TODAY‟S THE DAY!‟ […] HE THAT BELIEVETH IN ME, THOUGH HE WERE DEAD, YET

SHALL HE LIVE AND WHOEVER LIVETH AND BELIEVETH IN ME SHALL NEVER DIE‟” (Irving,

1989:654). Owen believes that his death is not futile; there is meaning in his suffering. He saves

the children, thus giving life to them and at the same time he believes in life after death, seen in his

words “SHALL NEVER DIE” (Irving, 1989:654).

Owen sacrificing his life for the few Vietnamese children is indicative of Gianni Vattimo‟s act of

kenosis – a self-emptying. Jesus took on a public image that was entirely human. He became

flesh and died an aggravated death on the cross in order to redeem others from their sins. Just

like Jesus had to die in order to save others from sin, Owen dies violently in order to save the

Vietnamese orphans. He does this voluntarily and according to him at the request of God. He

becomes entirely receptive to God‟s Divine will. Vattimo regards this kenosis of God as the only

way to speak of God in a postmodern society. This self-emptying act is linked to his ideas on weak

55

thought, which in turn lead to the dissolution of metaphysical absolutes and the reduction of

metaphysical violence. He regards caritas as the only way to live life in an exemplary, Christian

manner. Owen Meany loves his fellow human beings enough to give up his life for them. Through

this act he is redeemed. Irving makes this setting a secular one and the theme of sacrifice is

reshaped in that the sinner is all too human. Through his death, Owen atones for his sin of

involuntarily killing Tabitha Wheelwright.

As mentioned in the introduction, Edwards says that most novels follow a pattern of the fall, sin,

guilt and redemption. Although he is aware of the fact that most writers are indifferent or hostile to

Christianity, he suggests that “if the Biblical reading of life is in any way true, literature will be

drawn strongly towards it. Eden, Fall, Transformation, in whatever guise, will emerge in literature

as everywhere else” (Edwards, 1984:12). This is apparent in A prayer for Owen Meany. Owen is

not the only character to whom this pattern may be applied. He might feel that he has sinned by

indirectly killing his best friend‟s mother. This caused feelings of guilt and it might be the reason

why he insists on sacrificing his life in order to atone and to be redeemed. Pastor Merrill Lewis‟s

life follows much the same pattern, for he is a fallen man who has sinned by having an illicit

relationship with Tabitha Wheelwright. Merrill is tormented by guilt, but lacks the moral backbone

to own up to his responsibility. He searches for his lost faith in vain and embraces a life of doubt.

Ironically, his faith is restored by witnessing a staged “miracle” involving the dressmaker‟s dummy

and the murderous baseball. He cries out after his sermon: “I believe; help my unbelief” (Irving,

1989:663). It remains questionable whether Merrill will ever reach the rare, firm, unalterable faith

that Owen Meany possessed although he does redeem himself by asking God‟s forgiveness.

This section offered a discussion of Owen Meany as a Christ-like character and mentioned his

steadfast faith which is contrasted with the religious beliefs of the other characters. Only a person

with such a faith would be willing to be God‟s instrument and to sacrifice his life for others. At this

point, it is perhaps helpful to elaborate on exactly what kind of faith guides Owen towards the

ultimate sacrifice. Owen believes without proof. Owen and Johnny used to practise the shot in St

Michael‟s playground until it became dark and they could not see the statue of Mary Magdalene

any longer. Owen played a mind game with Johnny about not seeing Mary Magdalene, but still

knowing she was there. This argument he used to prove to Johnny that physical evidence is not

necessary to have faith:

„YOU HAVE NO DOUBT SHE‟S THERE?‟ he nagged at me. „Of course I have no doubt!‟ I said. „BUT YOU CAN‟T SEE HER – YOU COULD BE WRONG,‟ he said. „No I‟m not wrong – she‟s there, I know she‟s there!‟ I yelled at him. „YOU ABSOLUTELY KNOW SHE‟S THERE – EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN‟T SEE HER?‟ he asked me. „Yes!‟ I screamed „WELL, NOW YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT GOD,‟ said Owen Meany. „I CAN‟T SEE HIM – BUT I ABSOLUTELY KNOW HE IS THERE!‟ (Irving, 1989:533).

56

This absolute certainty or unshaking belief in things unseen is touched upon by Lyotard when he

argues that communities accept narratives as they are without legitimation by science because

these narratives have been handed down from generation to generation. Narrative knowledge is

enough to legitimate these petit recits (small narratives).

However, Owen Meany‟s faith is indicative of a postmodern position that regards religion more as a

spiritual experience than a faith based on Church dogmatics. As Sykes (1996:63) rightfully

observes, the story of Owen Meany seems to “support a free floating religiousness that makes use

of Christian elements but needs not take a definitively Christian shape”. Sykes calls it a “dogmatic

vagueness”. Vattimo seems to promote a religion without being too dogmatic, as dogmatism may

lead to totalizing world views. Owen is born a Catholic, but after the “unspeakable outrage” against

his parents, he becomes a Congregationalist and also an Episcopalian. Owen seems to be

searching, but not finding what he is looking for within the different Christian denominations.

However, this willingness to embrace whatever he finds useful is indicative of postmodern people.

He is very critical of the Catholic Church as institution and continuously attacks the clergy and their

hypocrisy. His unconventional spirituality is not compatible with institutionalized religion. This is

what makes Owen Meany a modern-day believer. Owen complains that the rituals in the Catholic

Church interfere with his desire to speak to God directly. He also comments on the absurdity of

confession: “Owen said the pressure to confess – as a Catholic was so great that he‟d often made

things up in order to be forgiven for them” (Irving, 1989:47). As mentioned in the previous chapter

of this dissertation, Vattimo makes it clear in his book After Christianity that what he proposes as a

model for religion today is far removed from doctrinal influences. He maintains that the church is

“certainly an important vehicle for revelation, but it is above all the community of believers who, in

charity, hear and interpret freely the meaning of the Christian message, mutually helping and

correcting one another” (Vattimo, 2002:9). He also refers to Lyotard‟s metanarratives when he

observes that: “Now, all the metanarratives – to use Lyotard‟s well-taken expression – that claimed

to mirror the objective structure of being have been discredited” (Vattimo, 2002:15).

We read Owen through Johnny‟s eyes, who realises at a young age that there is a fundamental

difference between their belief systems: “[…] it wasn‟t until we found ourselves attending the same

Sunday school, and the same church, that I was forced to accept that my best friend‟s religious

faith was more certain (if not always more dogmatic) than anything I heard in either the

Congregational or the Episcopal Church” (1989:48). Owen has a precocious insight from a very

young age, thus effectively setting him apart from his peers. The reader is, once again, made

aware of Owen being unlike others. Johnny relates that when other children his age complained

about claustrophobia and boredom, Owen complained about the insignificance of the ritual:

57

„THE TROUBLE WITH CHURCH IS THE SERVICE. A SERVICE IS CONDUCTED FOR A MASS AUDIENCE. JUST WHEN I START TO LIKE A HYMN, EVERYONE PLOPS DOWN TO PRAY. JUST WHEN I START TO HEAR THE PRAYER, EVERYONE POPS UP TO SING AND WHAT DOES THE STUPID SERMON HAVE TO DO WITH GOD? WHO KNOWS WHAT GOD THINKS OF CURRENT EVENTS? WHO CARES?‟ (Irving, 1989:48).

While at Gravesend Academy, Owen often publishes anti-establishment articles in the student

newspaper. He mentions the fact that these rituals are forced onto the boys, resulting in their

becoming prejudiced and negative:

„IT RUINS THE PROPER ATMOSPHERE FOR PRAYER AND WORSHIP TO HAVE THE CHURCH – ANY CHURCH – FULL OF RESTLESS ADOLESCENTS WHO WOULD RATHER BE SLEEPING LATE OR INDULGING IN SEXUAL FANTASIES OR PLAYING SQUASH. FURTHERMORE, REQUIRING ATTENDANCE AT CHURCH – FORCING YOUNG PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN RITUALS OF A BELIEF THEY DON‟T SHARE – SERVES MERELY TO PREJUDICE THOSE SAME YOUNG PEOPLE AGAINST ALL RELIGIONS‟ (Irving, 1989:351).

A religious reader might feel that religious experience is being marginalized. Kourie and

Ruthenberg (2010:111) mention that Sunday-worship stalwarts may find this new-look Christian

spirituality scary. They maintain that there is a discontent with dogmatism (if not with dogma) and

a pre-chewed religion in the postmodern era. Owen Meany voices this discontent and embodies

this spiritual quest, this mystery of “the other”. Belief, for Owen Meany is not an intellectual matter

– his stance echoes what William James said of Martin Luther‟s faith: “something not intellectual

but immediate and intuitive” (cited in Thomson et al, 1985:200). According to James (cited in

Thomson et al, 2008:366), religion is a choice and we must use our non-intellectual or passional

nature when exercising this choice. This is precisely what Owen does: “„NEVER CONFUSE

FAITH, OR BELIEF – OF ANY KIND WITH SOMETHING EVEN REMOTELY INTELLECTUAL‟”

(Irving, 1989:609).

Johnny is of the opinion that Pastor Merrill‟s beliefs are contradictory. Merrill regards Owen‟s

parents as superstitious, but believes God listened to his prayer at the Little League game when

Tabitha dropped dead. Johnny is vehement in his attack on Merrill, but generalizes about

evangelicals and politicians when he fulminates: “„It‟s not God who‟s fucked up, it‟s the screamers

who say they believe in Him and claim to pursue their ends in His holy name‟” (Irving, 1989:639).

Irving satirizes the New Age religious fanatics who feel the need to publicly proclaim their religion,

but actually lack real faith. Those pursuing “their ends in His holy name” may refer to

fundamentalists exploiting religion for selfish purposes.

Irving contrasts the kind of intuitive faith that Owen has with Johnny‟s new-found faith after Owen‟s

death. For the greater part of the novel, Johnny Wheelwright is a sceptic and lacks religious

58

commitment. As mentioned previously, he undergoes a Damascene conversion after witnessing

Owen‟s death. However, his faith reads by rote and he seems to be attached to rituals. His

religion is structured and conventional and his life is organized around the church calendar. He

admits: “Rituals are comforting, rituals combat loneliness.” We can conclude that Johnny‟s faith

will always be luke-warm, melancholic, uncertain; the kind of faith that is often criticized today as

simply a routine: “„As for my faith; I‟ve become my father‟s son – that is, I‟ve become the kind of

believer that Pastor Merrill used to be. Doubt one minute, faith the next‟” (Irving, 1989:669).

Owen‟s divine mandate culminates in his sacrifice. The reader is gradually introduced to

fragments of information regarding his pre-cognition of this event. Finally, all the repetitions of

patterns come together and the reader might actually believe in this miracle. Paul Eisenstein

(2006:10) asks the question whether Johnny and Irving end up fully identifying with Owen‟s

sacrifice and whether Irving asks his readers to do the same. Maybe Merrill‟s words sum up the

postmodern dilemma: “„As often as I feel certain God exists, I feel often at a loss to say what

difference it makes – that He exists – or even: that to believe in God, which I do, raises more

questions than it presents answers‟” (Irving, 1989:663). The postmodern search for answers is

highlighted here and in many ways Pastor Merrill‟s hovering in a liminal space between belief and

disbelief is indicative of society today.

3.4 The Miraculous

The term miracle has never been an easy term to define. The Watson’s dictionary of religions and

secular faiths defines it as follows: “any effect caused by an interruption or a suspension of, natural

law, which is therefore ascribed to a supernatural power, but the usefulness of this is relative to

time and culture” (Benedict, 2008:368).

We live in a time where proof is for many a requirement before they will believe in anything

remotely miraculous. The philosopher David Hume (1711-1760) called miracles highly improbable

events. He regards the miracles performed by God in the Bible as no more probable than any

other. His ideas had a profound effect on religious believers. The reason for this is the fact that so

many religions in the world base their beliefs on the miraculous. In the Christian religion, the

parting of the Red Sea to give the Israelites safe passage or Jesus‟ feeding 5,000 people with two

loaves of bread and five fish are but two examples. People readily believe or believed these

miracles without having any proof except the Bible, which is a written report. It is not a visible

report which is corroborated by scientific proof, (scientific versus narrative knowledge), but today

people are generally sceptical about modern miracles. David Hume gives four reasons why the

testimony on which a miracle is founded has never amounted to full proof: there has never been a

miracle that has been confirmed by a number of intelligent and trusted men of integrity to prove the

59

legitimacy of such claims; surprise and wonder as agreeable emotions influence humankind to

believe these events, even though we know there is no reality to prove them; supernatural and

miraculous relations are found among barbarous and ignorant nations, or if civilized people have

given any heed to them, it is because they were received from such people; there has never been

a testimony that has not been contradicted by many witnesses, which renders it unreliable (cited in

Thomson et al, 2008:401-404). Hume seems to demand scientific evidence when claims are made

about the probability of miracles. Lyotard, however, seems to refute the legitimacy of scientific

evidence or knowledge.

In The postmodern condition, Lyotard makes the observation that scientific knowledge also fails to

legitimate itself, because scientific knowledge relies on narrative to structure its discourse. In other

words, scientific knowledge becomes similar to narrative knowledge and therefore loses its

legitimacy. Lyotard (1984:27) argues that narrative knowledge is tolerant of scientific knowledge

because of its incomprehension of the problems of scientific discourse. He continues to say that

the opposite, however, is not true: “the scientist questions the validity of narrative statements and

concludes that they are never subject to argumentation or proof. He classifies them as belonging

to a different mentality: savage, primitive, underdeveloped, backward, alienated, composed of

opinions, authority, prejudice, ignorance, ideology” (Lyotard, 1984:26). He concludes by saying

that scientists see narratives as “fables, myths, legends, fit only for women and children” (Lyotard,

1984:26). Tate (2008:59) mentions that although Hume‟s argument has been “exceptionally

persuasive in the progressive, post-Enlightenment west, rival accounts of the miraculous continue

to proliferate”. This brings attention back to the phenomenon that many non-believing novelists still

relate miraculous stories.

There are always two sides to a coin and William Paley‟s “watch” argument may seem to refute

Hume‟s argument. In Paley‟s natural theology (1802), he states the argument of the watch in order

to prove that there must be an intelligent designer to account for the world:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had given before- that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as the first? (cited in Thomson et al, 2008:52).

The argument here is then that human artefacts are products of intelligible design and the works of

nature resemble these designs, therefore the works of nature are also products of intelligible

design. The ultimate conclusion is then that there is an ultimate designer, a supreme being who

60

has designed the works of nature. This argument is similar to that of Aquinas discussed earlier –

the argument of the first mover. This argument made a profound impression on Owen Meany

because he underlined the relevant lines in Aquinas‟s book – Demonstration of God’s existence

from motion.

Owen Meany needs no proof to believe in the miraculous. He also insists that a miracle cannot be

represented. This is proved by his vexation at Cecil B. Demille‟s screening of The Ten

Commandments just before Easter 1957. The parting of the Red Sea especially offended him:

“„YOU CAN‟T TAKE A MIRACLE AND JUST SHOW IT!‟ he said indignantly. „YOU CAN‟T PROVE

A MIRACLE - YOU JUST HAVE TO BELIEVE IT! IF THE RED SEA ACTUALLY PARTED, IT

DIDN‟T LOOK LIKE THAT,‟ he said. „IT DIDN‟T LOOK LIKE ANYTHING – IT‟S NOT A PICTURE

ANYONE CAN IMAGINE!‟” (Irving, 1989:331). Owen‟s refusal to contain the miraculous can be

linked to his own sacrificial death in that, despite his recurring visions, the scene of his sacrifice

results in something unimaginable (Eisenstein, 2006:12). Lyotard (1984:82) calls it “the

unpresentable”. In other words, the supernatural cannot be represented. Tate (2008:98) states

that although this is a piece of cinematic narrative, this iconoclastic approach to a fictional nature

defying event, raises questions regarding the propriety of representations of the miraculous. Tate

reminds of the second commandment and the prohibition on representations. It is doubtful that

Owen Meany referred to the second commandment, seen in the light of his anti-dogmatic stance in

the novel. Owen is also highly critical of television evangelists who perform miracles on screen:

“„LOOK AT THOSE WEIRDO TV MIRACLE WORKERS – THEY‟RE TRYING TO GET PEOPLE

TO BELIEVE IN MAGIC! BUT THE REAL MIRACLES AREN‟T ANYTHING YOU CAN SEE –

THEY‟RE THINGS YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE WITHOUT SEEING” (Irving, 1989:374). This may be

seen as Irving‟s questioning the commercialization of God. In a postmodern society such displays

of the “miraculous” are rife and the reader is made aware of the possible deceit behind such

phenomena through Owen‟s scepticism. The theme of the miraculous is also effectively explored

through the character of Merrill. Irving seems to poke fun at the idea that this doubting pastor

could be convinced of the miraculous by a bogus prank, which is rationally explicable, while

rejecting the miracle of Owen Meany in which the supernatural plays a role. Faith is a requirement

for Merrill to believe in miracles. Irving portrays the modern dilemma of believing in the miraculous.

Postmodern people do not find it easy to believe in the miraculous because they require proof for

the explanation of supernatural events. Owen has recurrent dreams and visions and an unyielding

belief in his divine purpose. This sets him apart from the other characters in the novel that do not

have this stable, spontaneous non-dogmatic belief. Readers are presented with fragments of the

miracle that is to come. The first encounter with Owen‟s preconceived knowledge is after Tabitha‟s

death when he relates how he is God‟s instrument. To the sceptical and believing reader this may

very well sound like a deranged person or a traumatised youngster. However, other patterns soon

61

follow, which may cause the sceptic to entertain a small possibility of truth in the miraculous. Tate

(2008:105) maintains that this realization of Owen‟s divination which turns out to be accurate,

allows Irving to confront a sceptical, postmodern society with a miracle. Owen has a vision of an

angel one night; he sees his name on Scrooge‟s grave, as well as his date of death; he has an

obsession with perfecting the shot and has dreams about his sacrificial death. There is

progression in his knowledge:

„LAST NIGHT I HAD A DREAM. NOW I KNOW FOUR THINGS. I KNOW THAT MY VOICE DOESN‟T CHANGE – BUT I STILL DON‟T KNOW WHY. I KNOW THAT I‟M GOD‟S INSTRUMENT. I KNOW WHEN I‟M GOING TO DIE – AND NOW A DREAM HAS SHOWN ME HOW I‟M GOING TO DIE. I‟M GOING TO BE A HERO! I TRUST THAT GOD WILL HELP ME, BECAUSE WHAT I‟M SUPPOSED TO DO LOOKS VERY HARD‟ (Irving, 1989:493).

An attentive reader is able to start constructing a possible scenario of Owen‟s vision. Irving gains

sympathy for the character of Owen Meany in that he, despite his Christ-like characteristics,

remains human as well. He is single-minded about his divine purpose, although he has a fear of

what is to come and wonders whether he will be able to fulfil the task.

The details of that tragic day are gradually revealed through dreams Owen has. He is certain that

he saves Vietnamese children and reads to Johnny from his diary one night in which he relates

pieces of that day – the explosion, the nuns and his ascension to heaven. Eventually, Owen

understands why his voice never changes. When Dick Jarvits, the disturbed brother of the

deceased, throws the grenade at Johnny in the airport bathroom, all the Vietnamese children listen

to Owen when he urges them to lie down: “…it was his voice that compelled the children to listen to

him – it was a voice like their voices. That was why they trusted him, why they listened.

„DOONGSA,‟ he said, and they stopped crying” (Irving, 1989:715).

Owen‟s voice always sounded like a permanent scream because of the position of his Adam‟s

apple. Although he had consulted doctors about this condition, they remained baffled as to why

this was the case. Owen realises that there is a very good reason for his voice being high-pitched

and rather different, a voice that demands attention. This voice is instrumental in the rescue of the

Vietnamese children. The whole concept that human beings only have partial knowledge is

emphasized here. Truth is always only partly revealed.

Johnny, after having caught the grenade in his hands, opens his arms for Owen to jump into. He is

lifted for the last time and successfully traps the grenade on the top ledge of the window. Finally,

all the practising for the shot makes sense and Owen dies a heroic death. This event takes place

on 8 July 1968, the date that Owen saw on Scrooge‟s tombstone. Owen‟s arms are blown away

and the reader is reminded of all the different manifestations of armlessness in the novel: the

armadillo whose claws Owen removed, Watahantowet‟s totem that is armless and the statue of

62

Mary Magdalene that Owen desecrates when he removes her arms. Owen Meany willingly gives

up his hands to his God, figuratively as well as literally. All these serve as prescience of what is to

come for Owen at the end. Ironic is the fact that Owen dies in the arms of a Catholic nun, even

though he feared them during his years at school. He always referred to them as “PENQUINS.”

While dying, Owen confirms his belief in the immortality of the soul: “„[…] WHOSOEVER LIVETH

AND BELIEVETH IN ME SHALL NEVER DIE‟” (Irving, 1989:719).

Johnny Wheelwright says a prayer for Owen at the end of the novel and he comes to a deeper

understanding of the forces that were at play when Owen was lifted up by the children at Sunday

school. Irving, in the introduction to the novel, says that this seeming weightlessness is interpreted

to mean “that he was always in God‟s hands” (Irving, 1989:14). Johnny reflects how the children

believed Owen to be weightless because they did not understand that other forces were involved.

His tone is regretful: “„Now I know they were the forces that contributed to our illusion of Owen‟s

weightlessness; they were forces we didn‟t have the faith to feel, they were the forces we failed to

believe in – and they were also lifting up Owen Meany, taking him out of our hands‟” (Irving,

1989:720). Irving does not answer the question whether the supernatural is at work here or

whether everything is just coincidence. The reader might be convinced, unconvinced or in the

liminal space mentioned before. Johnny believes that Owen Meany is a miracle because of what

he accomplishes and what his foreknowledge cannot logically explain. Johnny is moved to a fickle

faith at the end of the novel, a faith that is not unshakeable, but often characterized by doubt. This

is a faith completely different from the intuitive, non-dogmatic faith of Owen Meany. Johnny‟s faith

is bound in rituals and doctrines. He, at one point, questions the fact that God knew what was in

store for Owen and He, nevertheless, allowed it.

Wood (1999:276) observes that the problem of evil and its existence in the world is, for many

people, the real affront to belief in God. He says that “the existence of pain is an obstacle to belief

because it seems either to limit God‟s power or to qualify his goodness”. For many the theological

explanations are unsatisfactory or unacceptable. Wood refers to a few: the fact that God‟s ways

may not be understood by us; we will eventually be rewarded in heaven for all our suffering on

earth and the fact that suffering must precede happiness. Hume, the father of scepticism, uses

this argument when he states through his persona Philo that not merely the fact of evil, but the

enormous amount of evil makes it doubtful that a deity actually exists (cited in Thomson et al,

2008:147). Johnny, however, understands that faith does not bring all the answers. He says that

“For although I believe I know what the real miracles are, my belief in God disturbs and unsettles

me much more than not believing ever did; unbelief seems vastly harder to me now than belief

does – but belief poses so many unanswerable questions” (Irving,1989:669). Johnny prays to God

at the end to resurrect his friend. This may be interpreted as a sign of immaturity, an inability to

63

come to terms with his friend‟s death, but at the same time it could be a confirmation of hope.

Jansen (2001:119) sees Johnny‟s inability to deal with losing Owen as an inability to maintain

distance. As mentioned earlier, Jansen sees this distance as a way of coping with suffering, even

if it is just partly. Hope is what postmodern individuals are desperate for in our day; hope that

upholds faith. The Apostle Paul reminds his readers in Hebrews 11:1 that “Faith is the substance

of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Bible, 2001).

Whether the reader is convinced of the miracle of Owen Meany or not, is beside the point. Irving is

successful in portraying the search for the spiritual. Kourie and Ruthenberg (2010:103) call it the

inevitable “ache of absence common to Christian devotion and postmodern spiritual

fragmentation”. Irving confronts the reader with the complexity of spirituality in our postmodern

era. The spiritual cannot be contained, as Owen Meany rightfully says. Owen‟s words remind of

Lyotard‟s notion of “the unpresentable” – that which cannot be presented.

The introduction refers to Salman Rushdie‟s plea for a co-existence of the miraculous and the

mundane in the novel in order to balance reason with the numinous (Rushdie, 1991:376). Irving

balances these two levels without openly propagating any one level. Traditional religious themes

are recurrent without being offensive to the non-believer. These themes are reinterpreted in light

of contemporary concerns. Belief and disbelief co-exist as two sides of the same coin. He creates

a privileged space for the supernatural even if such phenomena cannot be explained. Tate

(2008:87) describes Irving‟s spiritual position as a space between the serious reservations of doubt

and the wistful glance of faith over our shoulders. Irving does this because it is a true reflection of

postmodern society in which a reader asks him/herself: of which stories do I find myself a part?

The reader does not have to believe in Owen‟s miracle – it could simply be seen as a praiseworthy

act by an exceptional being. Edwards (1984:73) writes: “We tell stories in a fallen world. By their

matter they may lament and counter that fall […] The strange power of story, however, is also to

achieve those ends simply by being itself […] it opens a story-world, where everything coheres

infrangibly and is impeccably.”

Irving, a novelist who is not particularly religious, employs Biblical themes such as providence,

sacrifice and the miraculous in such an innovative way that the reader is enticed to confront the

religious again, enticed to pose questions concerning the relevance of such themes and enticed to

consider the possibility of the supernatural. Vattimo (2002:17) argues that philosophers nowadays

speak more frequently about angels and redemption without providing an explicit justification for

the use of such terms. Precisely because the postmodern is characterized by the end of

metanarratives can the religious be considered again. Irving seems to have understood this in his

novel A prayer for Owen Meany. He satisfies the postmodern audience‟s longing and disdain for

64

the religious. In true postmodern style the novel does not offer final answers, but provide a

plurality of interpretations.

65

Chapter 4: Sin, Guilt and Redemption

Atonement – Ian McEwan

4

4.1 Introduction

Ian McEwan is a confessed atheist who once remarked that: “I don‟t believe in God. But the world

is just as warm, as rich, if not warmer and richer, when seen without a religious point of view. And

just as menacing,” (Lacayo, 2005:70). Despite this position, his work contains many Judeo-

Christian themes and for purposes of this dissertation the manifestation of sin, guilt and redemption

in Atonement will be examined as themes that show the profound theological engagement

contained within the contemporary novel, even when written by non-believers.

There are of course many Biblical themes in contemporary novelistic discourse, and the reason –

or at least part of the reason – for these is that they enable writers to give readers a glimpse of life

as it is through their stories, which often tend to follow the pattern of sin, guilt and redemption.

Michael Edwards believes, as mentioned earlier, that we invent stories because we live in a world

marred by original sin and through stories we reach towards a better and redeemed life. Ferretter

(2003:166) concurs that even though the world of a story is only temporary and “does not actually

constitute the redemption of the world promised by the Christian gospel, it nevertheless can be

understood as an expression of the desire for that redemption which St Paul attributes both to

fallen human beings and to the created world itself”. An immediate question a Christian reader

might ask – as perhaps any other reader – is whether the fact that McEwan is a non-believer

detracts from the novel as such. According to Bradley and Tate (2010:16) McEwan fills this space

of belief in God with belief in family, love, progress in science and also art. He furthermore

believes that the novel is “the only utopian space where believers of every persuasion – Christians,

scientists, communists, poets, even the pathologically deluded – can exist together without

violence” (Bradley and Tate, 2010:16). There is a definitive link here with Vattimo‟s advocation of

weak thought which prevents violence. As such, the novel provides an ideal space of convergence

and an opportunity for interaction between different ideologies. The content of Atonement is

predominantly secular, but provides enough religious symbolism to satisfy the reader interested in

the sacred.

Humans are corrupt beings and through story we endeavour to return to our former state of

innocence. One can argue that most stories then have this longing for redemption. The title

Atonement is a theological term and creates an expectation within the reader of something

66

theological to follow. Atonement implies, in a Christian sense, a God-figure who is capable of

forgiveness. This theological concern is indeed all-pervasive in the novel: can we atone for our

sins?

The search for atonement in the novel comes from Briony Tallis, who seeks penance through

fiction. She is a thirteen-year-old child and lives in a large country house with her family. The

novel starts out with the portrayal of a stifling hot day in 1935. The father of the house, Jack Tallis,

is in London and works as a civil servant. He is immersed in plans dealing with the millions of

casualties that a German air strike could cause. Emily, the mother of the family, mostly keeps to

her room as a result of migraines. Cecilia is Briony‟s twenty-three-year-old sister who has recently

graduated from Cambridge. They are all awaiting the arrival of Leon, the sisters‟ brother, and his

entrepreneur friend, Paul Marshall. Briony‟s twin nine-year-old cousins and their fifteen-year-old

sister Lola are also at the house. Robbie Turner, the son of the Tallis family‟s charlady, is also

back after having graduated from Cambridge.

It is a long and eventful day and by the end of the day, the twins disappear, Lola is raped and

Briony falsely accuses Robbie of the crime. Everyone turns against him except Cecilia, who is in

love with him and with whom he had a sexual encounter earlier on that same evening. Briony

misreads this encounter as sexual assault, when in fact it is an act of mutual passion between the

two lovers. Robbie spends five years in prison and we meet him when he is wounded and making

his way through the French countryside to Dunkirk during the war. In this middle section of the

novel, we become acquainted with the brutal atrocities of war. We learn that Briony has given up

an education at Cambridge and is now a trainee nurse in London. She realises how wrong she

was in 1935 and taking up this vocation is a gesture of atonement, of seeking penance for this

deed. Cecilia is also a nurse and has had no contact with her family ever since that fateful day.

Robbie has returned from war for a brief period and is living with Cecilia. Briony has also indicated

that she wants to set the record straight and that she wants to retract her previous statement in

which Robbie is implicated as the one who raped Lola. The novel ends on a surprising twist –

small details alter everything we have read so far. We learn that Briony has written the three

sections and that the two lovers were never together, but that Robbie died in France in 1940 and

that Cecilia was killed in the German bombing of the subway in London. Briony conjured this neat

ending as part of her search for redemption. An epilogue is supposed to tie the ends together in

order to ensure some form of coherence and to achieve a resolution, but this is not the case in this

novel. The novel follows a conventional, realist, narrative structure, although there are a number of

elements reminiscent of the modernist approach to fiction. The end of the novel is definitively

postmodern in that it denies order and the unity becomes fragmented. Claudia Schemberg

(2004:25) observes that the paradox between a desire for and a suspicion of master narratives

67

“manifests itself in the merging of a basic narrative realism with metafictional elements”. It seems

as if the novel is just another example of realist fiction, but at the end we realise that the novel is

not an unbiased account of realism, but has in fact been written by a character. Atonement is

concerned with storytelling and a metafictional self-consciousness right from the onset. Briony

indicates at the end of the novel that there has been numerous drafts each constituting a different

version of events. The truth remains elusive when there is a plurality of petit recits. There is no

neat resolution in the end that offers the reader a master version of the truth, but as Schemberg

(2004:88) says, the reader is invited to take part in contrasting stories. This encounter with

pluralism encourages a tolerance and guides the reader towards changing the “my” intentions to

“our” intentions.

Structurally, McEwan‟s novel follows the Biblical pattern of sin, guilt and redemption. These

theological themes are at the heart of this novel and provide an opportunity for the sacred and

secular to converge. This novel explores the possibility of how life on earth may be redeemed and

to which extent humans can arbitrate their own redemption. Sin is, however, necessary before

redemption can take place.

4.2 Sin

John Updike, in an interview with the Paris Review (1968) said that “unfallen Adam is an ape”

(cited in Samuels, 1994:34). What he meant was that humankind becomes unimportant if there is

no sin, guilt and deserving blame. These are the things that set us apart from animals. As soon as

a person is content and has what he wants, he is in effect dead.

What exactly is meant by sin? The argument here concentrates on sin from a theological point of

view. Broadly speaking, sin is that which is unacceptable in the eyes of God. The Greek word

αμαρτία means sin (archaic Greek ύϐ ρις), used as a noun and αμαρτάνω literally means to miss

the mark or target. In other words, we as humans fall short of God‟s will. Sin alienates humankind

from God and the relationship between God and humankind can only be restored through

redemption and the acceptance of God‟s forgiveness. According to many Christian denominations,

the Fall corrupted everything and therefore we have the concept of original sin. Humankind was

also corrupted through Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, resulting in humankind living with

those consequences. Seen in fictional terms, Walters (2010:116) argues that the “Old Testament

story of original sin serves as paradigm of fictional plotting” and that “all stories begin in innocence

and end in knowledge”, or awareness of sin echoing T.S. Eliot‟s famous line in “Gerontion”, “After

such knowledge, what forgiveness?” (Eliot, 1966:350).

The introductory chapter states the question whether a fictive atonement is indeed possible. This

is an important question seen in light of the fact that McEwan, as an atheist, will necessarily reject

68

the Christian understanding of original sin. Shah (2009:47), in an article entitled: “The sin of Ian

McEwan‟s fictive atonement: reading his later novels” comments on the fact that “the fall” is not an

historical event at the beginning of time for McEwan, but “an irrational and absurd event that

disruptively breaks into the otherwise innocent privacy of life”. Shah feels that McEwan‟s novels

ultimately disappoint when viewed from the point that there is no catharsis and our postmodern

discontent is without effect and not complete. One can disagree with Shah in that the catharsis

frustrates simply because McEwan does not see sin as rebellion against the Christian Creator.

Briony says towards the end of the novel that: “The attempt was all” (McEwan, 2007:371).

Catharsis lies in that attempt to atone, even if the attempt is aimed at humanity in the absence of

any deity.

There are many sinners in the novel, but the one who longs for forgiveness and a means of

penance is Briony Tallis. She wrongfully accuses Robbie Turner of having raped her cousin Lola.

This has a profound effect on the lives of Robbie and Briony‟s sister Cecilia, who are in love. The

question of how culpable Briony is as a thirteen-year-old, is less important than how flawed her

character is and why this is the case.

4.2.1 Briony’s inability to see other people as real as she is

Briony Tallis is a precocious child whose imagination has a tendency to run wild. She is rather

lonely and oftentimes left to her own devices. Such circumstances create the perfect breeding

ground for an untamed imagination. Her brother Leon and sister Cecilia are both much older than

she is and do not live at the house permanently any longer. She fills her long and empty hours

with writing plays. Her latest play called The trials of Arabella is to be performed for the family after

dinner. She wrote this play especially for her brother, Leon, and her ultimate goal is to alter his

ways so that he would settle down with a suitable wife instead of having many relationships, and

added to that, one who is willing to ask Briony to be her bridesmaid. She wants Leon to elect a

wife by using reason rather than passion. She has set ideas about the world and intends to mould

it to her liking. She is, furthermore, obsessed with order and control. McEwan (2007:4-5) writes:

“She was one of those children possessed by a desire to have the world just so. Whereas her big

sister‟s room was a stew of unclosed books, unfolded clothes, unmade bed, unemptied ashtrays,

Briony‟s was a shrine to her controlling demon.” It is apparent that she wants to use fiction to

influence her brother to conform to what she regards as appropriate behaviour. Briony‟s world

constitutes a world of either/or and she has rigid systems of right and wrong.

The trials of Arabella is a love story and foreshadows what will become of the characters in

Atonement, especially Robbie and Cecilia. Briony constructs characters for her plays and thus has

power over them. The problem comes in when she wants to extend that power over the real

69

people around her. Briony does not make a clear distinction between her creations and real life.

She fails to feel compassion for her cousins, who are at her house because of their parents getting

divorced: “she vaguely knew that divorce was an affliction, but she did not regard it as a proper

subject, and gave it no thought. It was a mundane unravelling that could not be reversed, and

therefore offered no opportunities to the storyteller: it belonged to the realm of disorder” (McEwan,

2007:8-9). She is selfish and fails to see that other people are as real as she is and this is what

Vattimo sees as the problem with postmodern society – the failure to extend neighbourly love. He

propagates caritas (charity) as perhaps the only solution to avoid violence and as a way to heed

“the other.” Caritas implies a tolerance towards others. This is related to Vattimo‟s weak thought

theory, which implies provision for a plurality of interpretations as opposed to strong thought that

results in totalitarianism and leads to violence. It is essentially this failure to see others as

significant which results in violence and totalitarianism. Mathews (2006:155) observes that

Briony‟s sense of symmetry is shattered when she realises that her cousins‟ representations of the

characters in her play is different from hers. He says that: “This realization creates a break in

Briony‟s personality, shattering the aesthetic symmetry that constitutes the foundation of her

narcissistic, totalitarian outlook.” This indifference to “the other” is part of Briony‟s sin. She calls

the idea of other minds “unbearable.”

This individual liability for sin is eclipsed by the enormity of the collective guilt during World War

Two. Ian McEwan gives us a glimpse of such total disregard for “the other” when he discusses the

war in the second part of the novel. These atrocities reflect on the idea of not seeing “the other” as

a separate, valuable human being. The portrayal of World War Two will be discussed later on in

this dissertation.

The play, The trials of Arabella, does not turn out as Briony wants it to, simply because the other

characters fail to rise to her expectations: “…for it had never occurred to her that her cousins would

not want to play their parts” (McEwan, 2007:12). Lola takes Briony‟s role as Arabella and for the

first time in her life she has to deal with a confrontation with “the other”. She subsides when she

realises that one simply has to do it [deal with the confrontation]. Briony chooses to be the stage

director if denied the role of Arabella. This way she remains in control of the characters and in

effect of the actors in her play. Briony is happy as long as she stays in control of those around her.

As long as they conform to her wishes and act within the boundaries she sets for them, she feels

whole and in command.

Very early in the novel, Briony wrestles with the question of whether other people are as real as

she is:

[…] was everyone else really as alive as she was? For example, did her sister really matter to herself; was she as valuable to herself as Briony was? Was

70

being Cecilia just as vivid an affair as being Briony? Did her sister also have a real self concealed behind a breaking wave, and did she spend time thinking about it, with a finger held up to her face […] If the answer was yes, then the world, the social world, was unbearably complicated, with two billion voices, and everyone‟s thoughts striving in equal importance, and everyone‟s claim on life as intense, and everyone thinking they were unique, when no one was. One could drown in irrelevance (McEwan, 2007:36).

It is a rather shocking realisation that other people are just as important, at least to themselves, for

one as self-absorbed as Briony. She comes to this realisation with a sort of reluctance as the

enormity of such an endeavour strikes her. The difficulty of considering “the other” and the

immense scope of such plurality is daunting and the danger of drowning in “irrelevance” does not

seem to be such an attractive option. After this reverie, Briony states that it is entirely possible that

everyone else has thoughts like hers, but this offends her sense of order and she does not really

feel it. Schemberg (2004:43) concurs that Briony‟s despondent thoughts about the “irrelevance” of

individuality reflects the confusion and disorientation which are typical of post-Enlightenment ideas.

Briony seems to realise that there are a plurality of voices, but no accepted master narratives. This

stance of Briony‟s, or for that matter McEwan‟s, touches on the relativity theme. If there is a

plurality of viewpoints and no single one is more important than the next one, the situation

becomes one of irrelevance. Does this necessarily detract from one‟s truth? At this point, there is

a faint glimmer that others are as important as Briony is, but it is an annoying thought and is easily

dismissed. This whole concept of McEwan‟s concerning the voice of the individual in competition

with so many other voices ties in with Lyotard‟s notion of “incredulity of master narratives”. There

are many world views and truth is contingent. What McEwan wants to show the reader is that if

the individual self is ever to achieve “at-one-ment”, it will be achieved “via a pragmatic, critical

pluralism with limits” (Schemberg, 2004:24). Briony needs not only to strive towards atonement,

but also to achieve at-one-ment with herself. She needs to forgive herself for her inability to

imagine herself in the lives of others and to see others as equally valuable even if they believe in

other master narratives.

It may be significant to explore where this concept of compassion in McEwan‟s writing comes from.

After the events of September 11, 2001, McEwan was asked to write about the post-September 11

world because he had in effect already written about it in his novels. In an article that was

published four days after the attack, McEwan wrote: “Imagining what it‟s like to be someone other

than yourself is at the core of our humanity. It is the essence of compassion, and it is the

beginning of morality” (cited in Bradley & Tate, 2010:22). What McEwan implies is that the

hijackers of the September 11 bombings would not have done what they had if they had been able

to imagine themselves in the position of the other victims. This idea of compassion is also, like

Vattimo‟s concept of charity, directly advocated by the Bible. It manifests as one of the

commandments that one should love one‟s neighbour. To expect compassion from the hijackers

71

may seem a rather naïve way of arguing about compassion because it is possible that the

hijackers are simply incapable of feeling any compassion. What is true though is that the novel

form provides an opportunity for us to imagine what it feels like to be someone else. Briony Tallis

fails to do just that and this is a sin which has dire consequences for the lovers, Robbie and

Cecilia.

4.3 Misinterpretation

An informed reader should understand why McEwan includes an epigraph from Jane Austen‟s

Northanger Abbey before the beginning of the novel. There are clear similarities between the

characters of Catherine Morland and Briony Tallis. The passage entails a conversation between

Henry Tilney and Catherine Morland with Tilney informing Morland how incorrect her interpretation

of General Tilney is. Briony Tallis too, uses fiction and her imagination to form a twisted,

unfounded perception of Robbie. This subtle hint serves as warning to the reader that what seems

to be true is not always the case. The structure of the novel endorses this deception. According to

McEwan (cited in Childs, 2006:131) Catherine Morland “was a girl so full of the delights of Gothic

fiction that she causes havoc around her when she imagines a perfectly innocent man capable of

the most terrible things. For many, many years I‟ve been thinking how I might devise a hero or

heroine who would echo that process in Catherine Morland, but then go a step further and look at,

not the crime, but the process of atonement, and do it in writing – do it through storytelling.”

McEwan‟s Briony is indeed just such a character whose obsession with fiction and storytelling

destroys the lives of those around her.

Briony‟s inability to interpret scenes indirectly contributes to her making the false accusation

against Robbie. One can argue that everyone makes mistakes, but in this case the repeated

misinterpretation of incidents ultimately leads to Briony lying about her cousin‟s molestation.

Robbie reflects that there are mitigating circumstances “the flash of malice, the infantile

destructiveness he could understand” but there was more than just a child making a mistake: “the

depth of the girl‟s rancour, her persistence with a story that saw him all the way to Wandsworth

prison” (McEwan, 2007:233). This blatant lie is her real sin. Her lively imagination and her

confusing fiction with real life contribute to these constant misinterpretations of scenes.

One such crucial misinterpretation is the scene at the fountain comprising Robbie and Cecilia.

Briony watches them from the window upstairs and interprets the scene wrongly. Cecilia has to

put flowers in a vase for their prospective guest, Leon‟s friend, Paul Marshall. She decides to get

the water from the fountain, where she encounters Robbie. They have been rather awkward with

each other at College and this continues on their return after graduating. Typical British class

divisions are responsible for their awkwardness with each other. This is because they are in love,

72

which they have not admitted to each other. Cecilia is irritated with Robbie for behaving like the

typical servant‟s son when he removes his shoes before entering the house. He offers to help with

the vase and the lip unfortunately breaks off. This Meissen vase is symbolic of the fragility of the

situation between them and points perhaps to a loss of innocence. Hermione Lee concurs that the

broken vase serves as “a Jamesian symbol of all that cannot be made whole again, except by

artifice” (cited in Childs, 2006:136). The vase is mended, but the cracks remain. Perhaps this

points to the fact that even atonement is not enough and that the scar or crack will always remain.

This is a typical secular interpretation and one that is endorsed by a non-believer who does not

care about the certainty of forgiveness and ultimate healing from a God figure. The vase is finally

broken by Betty later on in the novel. Cecilia removes her blouse and skirt and dives into the water

with her underwear to retrieve the broken pieces. She does not accept his offer of help in order to

punish him. Briony interprets the scene as a marriage proposal, but it does not make sense. She

immediately recalls a tale she has written about a humble woodcutter saving a princess from

drowning. What does not make sense, however, is Robbie raising his hand as if issuing a

command that Cecilia cannot disobey. Briony is baffled by the sequence of the drowning scene:

“The sequence was illogical – the drowning scene, followed by a rescue, should have preceded the

marriage proposal” (McEwan, 2007:39). She gradually forms her own twisted opinion about

Robbie based on fatal misinterpretations.

The next incident that strengthens Briony‟s slow-forming negative perception of Robbie is when he

asks her to deliver a note to Cecilia. He unknowingly gives Briony an obscene note instead of a

love confession. On her way to delivering the note, Briony opens the letter and is shocked by an

obscene word. She is plunged into an adult world that is completely foreign to her and she finds it

difficult to interpret the meaning of this: “She had read the note standing shamelessly in the centre

of the entrance hall, immediately sensing the danger contained in such crudity. Something

irreducibly human, or male, threatened the order of their household” (McEwan, 2007:114). Briony

immediately starts constructing a story in her mind based on what she thinks she knows and what

previous knowledge she has of fairy tales: “[…] this was the story of a man whom everybody liked,

but about whom the heroine always had her doubts, and finally she was able to reveal that he was

the incarnation of evil” (McEwan, 2007:115). Briony constructs her own drama based on what she

has seen – a drama which requires a heroic rescue and retribution for the evil perpetrator. She still

harbours romantic notions of heroes and heroines in her overactive imagination. She has the

ability to imagine, but on her own terms and definitely not taking into account the thoughts and

feelings of others. Her interpretive ability is totalitarian and she is oblivious to the fact that

interpretation is pluralistic. This is Briony‟s story and only hers. She does not give a second

thought to this feeling that things do not add up. She has known Robbie as a friend all her life, yet

her over-imaginative mind forces her to construct her own story.

73

What further strengthens this perception of Robbie being evil is the encounter in the library

between Robbie and Cecilia. Robbie comes to apologize for the obscene letter he has written to

Cecilia. Their repressed passion for each other reaches a climax when they have hurried sex in

the library. Unfortunately, Briony walks in and witnesses this scene. She is too young to interpret

the scene for what it is – a consensual sexual encounter. She misinterprets the scene: “Though

they were immobile, her immediate understanding was that she interrupted an attack, a hand-to-

hand fight” (McEwan, 2007:123). She sees Robbie as a sexual predator and her sister as the

helpless victim: “He looked so huge and wild, and Cecilia with her bare shoulders and thin arms so

frail […]” (McEwan, 2007:123).

It should not come then as a surprise that Briony accuses Robbie of the molestation of Lola later

that same evening. She has built a case against him even before the scene with Lola. McEwan

subtly warns the reader against the pitfalls of misinterpretation and its dire consequences.

The twins (Lola‟s brothers) have disappeared because they feel unwanted. Everybody, except

Emily Tallis, is out searching for them in the dark. Briony joins the search party, brooding on her ill

feelings for Robbie: “but there was a maniac treading through the night with a dark, unfulfilled heart

– she had frustrated him once already – and she needed to be earthbound to describe him too.

She must first protect her sister against him, and then find ways of conjuring him safely on paper”

(McEwan, 2007:157). The word “conjuring” is significant as it points to her evoking that which does

not exist – in this case an image of Robbie. It is clear that her perception of reality and fiction are

very much still intertwined. While she is out searching for the twins, she ponders on her own loss

of innocence. This is the beginning of Michael Edward‟s pattern in a story – the loss of innocence

or the Fall, which is the result of sin. She contemplates:

Her childhood had ended, she decided now as she came away from the swimming pool, the moment she tore down her poster. The fairy stories were behind her, and in the space of a few hours she had witnessed mysteries, seen an unspeakable word, interrupted brutal behavior, and by incurring the hatred of an adult whom everyone had trusted, she had become a participant in the drama of life beyond the nursery (McEwan, 2007:160).

Briony is losing her innocence and although the fairy stories should be a thing of the past, she still

clings to made-up fantasies of her own. In the darkness, Briony mistakes the figure of the rapist for

a bush. On closer inspection, she finds Lola all shaken up after the incident. She sees a larger

figure disappearing in the distance and immediately assumes it was Robbie, whom she has seen,

and she forces Lola into confirming this. Lynne Schwartz (2002:24) says that her thinking is “a

blend of inference, conjecture, envy, and self-dramatizing – all the elements of an overheated

adolescent imagination”. Briony connects all she has witnessed during the evening, or thought she

has witnessed. Her obsession with order and symmetry contributes to this knowledge: “The truth

74

was in the symmetry, which was to say, it was founded in common sense. The truth instructed her

eyes” (McEwan, 2007:169). She admits that it was not simply her eyes that told her the truth,

because it was too dark for that, but rather her construction of a story in her mind: “She trapped

herself, she marched into the labyrinth of her own construction” (McEwan, 2007:170). McEwan

uses the word “labyrinth” here to emphasise the confusion, the uncertainty of her accusation, as it

was based solely on her self-delusion rather than on verifiable facts. She is indeed in a labyrinth

after this accusation, one in which she becomes trapped in her own feelings of guilt for the rest of

her life. Robbie fulfils the role of rapist for her in the tidy narrative of her imagination. Briony never

really liked her cousin before, but at that moment she genuinely feels sympathy for her. She also

fails to see subtle indications that Lola is not to be trusted. When she reaches out to touch her

cousin‟s cheek, it is dry and Briony makes nothing of it. Lola takes on the role of passive victim

and by remaining silent over what really happened she becomes even more liable in Robbie‟s

destruction. Briony fails to realise that Lola does not corroborate her story.

Briony is not the only one who fails to see the indicators that point to Paul Marshall as the

perpetrator. Cecilia refers to Marshall as having “something comically brooding about his face”

(McEwan, 2007:47). When introduced to the twins he does not even smile at Pierrot‟s joke, who

comments by saying that he is generally considered the more pleasant one of the twins. Lola

describes his face as cruel, but she still finds him attractive. He takes a perverse interest in Lola

and after an afternoon nap finds himself “hot across the chest and throat, uncomfortably aroused,

and confused about his surroundings” (McEwan, 2007:60). It is when he gives Lola an Amo

chocolate bar that one realises the extent of his perversity when he watches her eating it, and

insisting on her biting it. The other characters also remain oblivious to the fact that both Lola and

Marshall have scratch marks on them at dinner. The novel serves as warning to readers to be

more perceptive. A perceptive reader might have seen that the name „Lola‟ could have been a

reference to Nabokov's Lolita. In this novel, Humbert Humbert, a scholar, rents a room from

Charlotte Haze, a widow, and falls in love with her twelve-year-old daughter Dolores. She is also

known as Lo or Lola. He affectionately calls her Lolita and later exploits her for sexual favours.

A brief look at the other characters indicates how they are also culpable in the ruination of Robbie

and Cecilia‟s lives. Barbara Davis in a review of McEwan‟s novel mentions the fact that the sin of

class privilege actually demands atonement. Seeing “the other” as inferior is here seen as a sin in

a theological sense. There are numerous verses in the Bible supporting this e.g. Galatians 3:28:

“So there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, between slaves and free people, between

men and women; you are all one in union with Jesus Christ” (Bible, 2001). Everyone readily

believes that Robbie, who is the son of the Tallis family‟s charlady, is the rapist. The real culprit,

Paul Marshall, is not even considered a suspect, despite the fact that he never mentions the fact

75

that Lola has been scratched by her brothers before Briony brings it up at the table. Class

discrimination makes them believe that Robbie, a penny-less protégé of Jack Tallis, is capable of

such a crime, whereas Marshall, the rich entrepreneur, is not. Robbie and Cecilia are also guilty

because they assume that Danny Hardman, the son of Old Hardman, is guilty. They too eagerly

blame the one from a socially inferior class. Emily Tallis has never been keen on Jack Tallis

insisting to sponsor Robbie‟s education. She always said that nothing good would come of it and

Jack always replied that plenty already did. He was obviously referring to Robbie graduating with a

first from Cambridge. The Marshalls are guilty by concealing the true facts of the rape incident:

Paul by actually raping Lola and her by keeping quiet for years. He even marries Lola in order to

ensure that she will never testify against him. These characters are all guilty, but Briony is the one

longing for forgiveness after suffering from haunting feelings of guilt. Ian McEwan revitalizes the

theme of sin here by focusing on social sin. How is society with all its social hierarchies

responsible for sinning against the individual? Sin takes on the form of social discrimination – the

need to find a scapegoat. This scapegoat is Robbie, who is seen as socially inferior to Paul

Marshall.

Eagleton (2001:2177) comments on these misreadings in this novel in an article entitled “A

beautiful and elusive tale” when he concurs that “all seeing is partial seeing” and that interpretation

takes place within “the monomania of the imagination”. This monomania of Briony is indirectly

responsible for this tragedy. Interpretation is always fragile as there is a plurality of interpretations

and the possibility of misinterpretation is great.

4.3.1 World War Two as macrocosm

At this stage, I deem it necessary to comment briefly on McEwan‟s portrayal of World War Two and

how this ties in with Vattimo‟s concept of the consequences of humanity‟s failure to heed “the

other.” Vattimo believes that violence is the result of strong thought; he distinguishes between

pensiero forte (strong thought) and pensiero debole (weak thought). Strong thought entails holding

one‟s beliefs and culture as absolute and in the process reducing all other cultures, beliefs and

customs to one‟s own will. This inevitably leads to violence towards “the other.” In other words,

one believes only in one‟s own ideology without considering another‟s point of view. This concept

is based on Nietzsche‟s “will to power” (discussed earlier on). In other words, humans have the

tendency to want to dominate the weaker ones. McEwan relates these atrocities committed

against “the other” through the eyes of Robbie Turner when he is on his way to Dunkirk

accompanied by his two corporals, Mace and Nettle. At one stage, they see a leg in the fork of a

tree: “It was a perfect leg, pale, smooth, small enough to be a child‟s. The way it was angled in the

fork, it seemed to be on display, for their benefit: this is a leg” (McEwan, 2007: 192). McEwan

writes about this in a flat, unemotional way as if to emphasise this cold, calculated annihilation of

76

“the other.” There is nothing sentimental about this description, yet it is portraying just what it is

supposed to – this total disregard for “the other”. Ian McEwan said in an interview (cited in Plath,

2006:130) that “you‟ve got to make your reader see. So when people accuse me of being too

graphic in my depictions of violence, my response is, „Well, either you do violence, or you

sentimentalise it”.

The encounter with the RAF pilot is perhaps the most unsettling example of the disregard for “the

other.” The soldiers are all exhausted and feel betrayed because of the RAF‟s failure to support

the army by not providing air cover. They are frustrated and want to take it out on the RAF man,

who is totally helpless against this angry mob. O‟Hara (2011:81) concurs that the RAF man “is

stereotyped, scapegoated into being the cause of all that has been suffered. At the expense of his

identity, a role has been imposed upon him. He is not another mind, he is not a face, he is a straw

man, an „it‟ with a preconceived role”. When violence is inflicted by a group it diminishes individual

responsibility. In other words, sin is placed on the shoulders of society and the individual is

regarded as innocent. McEwan reshapes the theme of sin into a form of national sin in that

personal sin is abolished and an obscure entity is blamed. Through this portrayal of national or

collective sin, McEwan subtly hints towards the dangers of anonymous entities carrying blame

instead of individuals. He seems to say that it is easy to hide behind the collective group and in

this way the individual sinners are never brought to justice.

Briony tries to avoid the fact that “the other” is different and therefore forces this “other” into roles

she chooses. Briony‟s world is a microcosm of the larger world (macrocosm). The soldiers try to

outdo one another in their efforts to do violence unto the man: “Everyone had suffered, and now

someone was going to pay” (McEwan, 2007:251). Robbie knows that it will be no good to go to the

man‟s defence. What aggravates the situation for the RAF man is the fact that he does not deny

responsibility: “It may have been a protective stance, but it was also a gesture of weakness and

submission which was bound to provoke greater violence” (McEwan, 2007:252). Robbie does,

however, contemplate the possibility of reminding this mob that “he was a man, not a rabbit to be

skinned” (McEwan, 2007:252). Robbie exhibits caritas (charity) in that he considers the dilemma

the man is in. Mace comes to the man‟s rescue just before Robbie acts, which may not have been

a good idea considering the physical condition he was in. Mace understands the plea of “the

other” and shows compassion as an individual against the hysteria of the masses.

Vattimo agrees that there should be a theological concept of pieta – of charity in order to

counteract violence. What the incidence with the RAF man shows us is that, as Luca D‟Isanto

(1993:11) in his translation of Gianni Vattimo‟s work says: “The violence of metaphysics pervades

all political institutions, all systems of knowledge or of all individual actions as the imposition of

one‟s own system or one‟s own interpretation of reality upon the other, or even as the literal

77

destruction and murder of the other because s/he is a danger to the order of the community, or

because s/he is different.” Briony Tallis commits a terrible sin by lying and subsequently destroys

the lives of Robbie and Cecilia. Her crime is probably not so significant in scope compared to the

horrors of the war, but McEwan makes her sin and guilt the central issues of his novel. Without

sin, guilt and remorse, Briony would be an ape, in the words of John Updike. The next theme,

closely linked to that of sin, is guilt. This is another quality that sets us apart from animals.

Humankind without guilt becomes an animal without remorse.

4.4 Guilt

Samuel Taylor Coleridge‟s The rime of the ancient mariner echoes the same notion of guilt and the

confession of sin as McEwan‟s Atonement. The mariner kills an albatross and for his punishment

the rotting bird is hung around his neck. The sailor then relates his story to every third person he

encounters. This he does as an attempt to atone for his sin of having killed the bird. Briony Tallis

also spends a whole lifetime writing and re-writing her crime. The constant memory of her crime is

her symbolic albatross. The sailor restores his peace by retelling his story, but mostly through

prayer. Briony‟s method to restore peace is secular and occurs through repeated versions of her

story.

Guilt is a lens through which humankind can observe its thoughts and actions. It occurs when

there is disharmony between a person and his God or gods, but could also result from conflict

between a person and those around him or her. Guilt is necessary for a person to become morally

aware of his or her shortcomings and estrangement from either God or society. Briony is not

religious and therefore cannot feel remorse before God. She is, however, connected to an external

entity, which is society. She feels that she has fallen short of the expectations of society and

endeavours to rectify that. She is sharply contrasted with those who feel or show no remorse or

sense of guilt. Paul Marshall and Lola Quincey are typical examples of characters who show no

sensitivity or guilt, at least not to the extent that they admit publicly to their conspiracy. They are

involved in charity and this might be seen as their pathetic way to atone for their sins, although it

might also be just another ploy to be seen and admired in public.

Mathews (2006:153) observes in his article entitled “The impression of a deeper darkness: Ian

McEwan‟s Atonement”, that McEwan echoes Friedrich Nietzsche‟s argument of creditor and

debtor. What this means is that sin is not “just an offence against God; it is a debt that, under the

old law of Moses, must be repaid”. The question remains how Briony will repay this debt, if at all.

Mathews (2006:153) quotes Nietzsche‟s words: “Indebtedness towards God: this thought becomes

for him [the guilty person] an instrument of torture […] this represents a kind of madness of the will

in psychic cruelty which simply knows no equal: the will of man to find himself guilty and

78

reprehensible to a point beyond the possibility of atonement”. This is a point Briony touches on

when she says that there is no atonement from God because she is an atheist. I shall return to this

point again later on, but suffice to say for now that Briony can at best achieve a secular atonement.

This torment of guilt starts almost immediately after her damning evidence against Robbie: “[…]

she could not sleep. Voices and images were ranged around her bedside, agitated, nagging

presences, jostling and merging, resisting her attempts to set them in order” (McEwan, 2007:183).

She recalls how “guilt refined the methods of self-torture, threading the beads of detail into an

eternal loop, a rosary to be fingered for a lifetime” (McEwan, 2007:173). Interesting is the image of

a rosary that McEwan uses to describe Briony‟s persistent guilt. A rosary is a typical Roman

Catholic sacramental which entails a string of beads used to count one‟s prayers. This loop

ensures that it is a never-ending circle – a different prayer is said at each fingering of every bead.

Briony feels that the details of that fateful evening are like beads on a string that could be fingered

for an eternity, reminding her of the lie she told. This image is linked to the fact that praying the

rosary is sometimes given by priests as a way of showing penance or reflection on sins. Père

Marriott, the convent priest in Mariëtte in ecstasy assigns the neophyte the Litany of Saints as a

penance. Unfortunately for Briony, it is not that simple. She will figuratively be clutching a rosary

for an entire lifetime.

When the police arrive to arrest Robbie, Briony is once again watching from a vantage point – her

bedroom window. She is resolved in her decision regarding his guilt. McEwan uses another

typical Christian concept to describe the way Briony sees Robbie: “It had the look of eternal

damnation” (McEwan, 2007:184). This is a powerful concept and points to her playing God here,

deciding on the fate of another human being. Briony has striking similarities to Arthur Miller‟s

Abigail Williams. Abigail is described as a girl “with an endless capacity for dissembling” (Miller,

1952:23). It is through her self-serving accusations of witchcraft that the lives of many inhabitants

of Salem are ruined. The puritan society of Salem, Massachusetts in 1694 is largely to blame for

the hangings of innocent people and for failing to see Abigail for what she really is. John Proctor‟s

wife, Elizabeth, is accused of being a witch through Abigail‟s cunning ways. Proctor cries out in

court: “You are pulling Heaven down and raising up a whore” (Miller, 1952:93). These words may

very well have been the words of Robbie or Cecilia, although not seeing Briony as a whore, but a

deceitful liar. Briony is also protected by society and her version of events is believed without

proper investigation. Jacobi (2011:60) calls it “pathetic appeal” – she [Briony] would have no

reason to lie, especially about a person she has known for so long.

Guilt without an effort to rectify is of no value. Briony is consumed by guilt over this treacherous

act which results in the ruination of two people‟s lives. She does, however, make an effort to

79

redeem herself; if not before a God then at least in the eyes of society. This redemption is evident

in her kenosis or her self-emptying.

4.4.1 The concept of kenosis manifested through Briony

Briony‟s guilt about her lie leads to her giving up a place at Cambridge and becoming a nurse

instead. Cecilia writes to Robbie about Briony while he is a soldier: “She‟s saying that she wants to

be useful in a practical way. But I get the impression she‟s taken on nursing as a sort of penance”

(McEwan, 2007:212). This is indeed the case and seems totally out of character to those who

know Briony well.

Kenosis is a key concept in the work of Gianni Vattimo and refers to the self-emptying of Christ

when He became a man on earth. Briony is a very egocentric young girl incapable of imagining

what it feels like to be someone else. Her signing up as a trainee nurse shows her willingness to

relinquish herself and see “the other” as equally important as she is. Kourie and Ruthenberg

(2010:116) concur that “this incarnational self-relinquishment meets with conceptual sympathies in

postmodern thought”. This manifests in postmodernism as “a wariness about the self, a

dispossession, an emptying, together with a new openness to the „other‟”. To serve others seems

a far cry from her self-absorbed life in which she manipulates those around her in her fictional

dramas.

Briony and her fellow trainee nurses are under the Gestapo-like regime of Sister Drummond, who

tolerates no mistakes. Briony is addressed only as nurse Tallis and this links up with the fact that

individual identities are discouraged. She is embarrassed when she makes Sister Drummond

aware of the fact that her name tag reads N. Tallis instead of B. Tallis. She fails to realise that she

will simply be nurse Tallis from now on. The emphasis is no longer on individuals, but on a

collective force. During her training as nurse, she suffers many physical discomforts: “The high

starched collars rubbed her neck raw. Washing her hands a dozen times a day under stinging cold

water with a block of soda brought on her first chilblains. The shoes she had to buy with her own

money fiercely pinched her toes” (McEwan, 2007:276). These expectations of neatness and

hygiene are normal features of the nursing profession. However, Briony seems to self-impose or

overdo and this is similar to the Catholic concept of mortification. This is a term associated with

religion and spiritualism. This self-mortification is Briony‟s attempt to atone for sins. This is her

kenosis – her self-emptying and coming to terms with the harsh reality of war. This is where Briony

learns to see “the other” as important as herself and to show real compassion. She continues to

write during her stay as trainee nurse, but her writing is different: “The age of clear answers was

over. So was the age of characters and plots. Despite her journal sketches, she no longer really

80

believed in characters” (McEwan, 2007:281). All the conjuring of magical lives into a controllable

pattern has come to an end.

Briony writes to Cecilia and communicates the fact that she wants to retract her statement and set

the record straight about what really happened on that fateful day in 1935. As part of this process,

Robbie‟s name will be cleared and her parents will be informed about the lie she told at the time.

Her father writes to her that Paul Marshall and Lola Quincey are to be married in a week‟s time on

the coming Saturday in the Church of the Holy Trinity, Clapham Common. This small piece of

information brings on increased feelings of guilt, which she tries to push aside by working harder.

She realises that this is futile: “All she wanted to do was work, then bathe and sleep until it was

time to work again. But it was all useless, she knew. Whatever skivvying or humble nursing she

did, and however well or hard she did it […] she would never undo the damage. She was

unforgiveable” (McEwan, 2007:285). Briony seeks to find solace in her work when she is haunted

by feelings of guilt. This is indicative of the Calvinistic work ethic. When caring for some of the

soldiers, she often imagines doing the same to Robbie: “She thought too how one of these men

might be Robbie, how she would dress his wounds without knowing who he was, and with cotton-

wool tenderly rub his face until his familiar features emerged, and how he would turn to her with

gratitude, realise who she was, and take her hand, and in silently squeezing it, forgive her”

(McEwan, 2007:298). Even when experiencing haunting feelings of guilt, Briony resorts to her

lively imagination to construct a possible scenario. It seems as if reconciliation will occur on her

own terms, as imagined by her.

It is through caring for the wounded and the maimed that Briony finally realises that other people

are as real as she is. This experience is her kenosis, her way of stripping herself of her egotism

and becoming a servant. O‟Hara (2010:83) calls it an “asceticism, a relinquishing of ego for an

existence „lived in one room, without a door‟”. Briony is assigned the task of changing the dressing

on the wound of a particular soldier, Private Latimer, whose cheek has been blown away. It is only

then that Briony realises that “a person is, among all else, a material thing, easily torn, not easily

mended” (McEwan, 2007:304). She gains an intimate perspective of the human body when “every

secret of the body [is] rendered up – bone risen through flesh, sacrilegious glimpses of an intestine

or an optic nerve” (McEwan, 2007:304). McEwan gives a graphic description of the Private‟s

injuries: “The cavity is all ruin, crimson and raw. She could see through his missing cheek to his

upper and lower molars, and the tongue glistening, and hideously long. Further up, where she

hardly dared look, were the exposed muscles around his eye socket. So intimate and never

intended to be seen” (McEwan, 2007:302). This description of the soldier‟s injuries is not

sentimental, but brutal and to the point. Laura Salisbury (2010:884) mentions the fact that

McEwan links the “curiosity of science and the morality of imagination with the possibilities of

81

literature, and with the novel in particular”. McEwan (cited in Salisbury, 2010:884) said in an

interview with Random House Readers‟ Group – Reading Guide that a novel is not necessarily

good or interesting if it is moralistic, but if it gives us an intimate glimpse of other people, it certainly

increases our capacity to feel.

On another occasion, Sister Drummond orders Briony to sit and talk with a young French soldier

called Luc Cornet. This encounter makes her aware of the fact that rules and regulations and

order do not always have to be heeded. She finds that all these endless procedures that she has

been taught are actually useless when one is faced with a life and death situation. Luc is dying

and speaks incoherently at times. He seems to believe that Briony is a girl with whom he is in love.

She is reluctant at first to play along, as it has been drummed into her never to reveal her Christian

name to any patient. Luc asks Briony to loosen his bandages and only after witnessing his

obscene wound does she play along and pretend to be the girl that he loves. Briony finds that the

side of Luc‟s head is missing: “The hair was shaved well back from the missing portion of skull.

Below the jagged line of bone was a spongy crimson mess of brain, several inches across,

reaching from the crown almost to the tip of his ear” (McEwan, 2007:308). It dawns on her that he

is indeed dying and that sister Drummond wants her to be with him in his last moments. O‟Hara

(2011:83) comments on the fact that Briony “wilfully imagines herself into the foreign and uncertain

terrain of an Other‟s narrative world” whereas before she was “so apt to hijack the narratives of

others, reconstructing them to fit her own vision”. Briony becomes part of Luc‟s narrative and

finally reveals her first name to him, as well as admits that she loves him. She discards this

obsessive sense of order for a higher course – the acceptance of “the other” as being as important

as she is. Briony stays with Luc until he dies and fulfils the requirement of not letting the other die

alone as stated by Lèvinas: “[…] it is the fact that I cannot let the other die alone, it is like a calling

out to me […] For me, [the other] is above all the one I am responsible for” (cited in O‟Hara,

2011:82). Lèvinas believed that we all have an infinite obligation towards other human beings. His

work is based on the ethics surrounding “the other.” Lèvinas (1982b:157-158) stated that “the

Human consists precisely in opening oneself to the death of the other, in being pre-occupied with

his or her death [...] I am persuaded that around the death of my neighbor what I have been calling

the humanity of man is manifested”. Briony heeds her responsibility towards “the other”, and

provides consolation to Luc in his dying moments.

Briony decides to go and see Cecilia and inform her of her desire to retract the statement which led

to Robbie‟s conviction. According to Williams (cited in Jacobi, 2011:63) Briony feels both guilty

and ashamed: She feels guilt, which as Williams says, “comes from an act or an omission of a sort

that typically elicits from other people anger, resentment, or indignation”. Briony also feels

ashamed of herself and diminished. She attempts to improve herself by revoking her statement

82

and writing to her parents in order to clear Robbie‟s name. Jacobi (2011:63) concurs that Briony‟s

“repeated drafts can be seen as attempts to work through her difficulties and to find some

emotional and psychological relief”. On her way to Cecilia she reflects on the critique of Cecil

Connolly from Horizon on her manuscript Two figures by a fountain. Connolly suggests that she

needs development, backbone and some tension. Kathleen D‟Angelo (2009:99) observes that

Briony‟s rejection of character is an omission of what Woolf believed is essential – the human

element. She continues to say that Briony “has used these narrative techniques to bury her crime

within the text”. Briony is fully aware of what is lacking: “The evasions of her little novel were

exactly those of her life. Everything she did not wish to confront was also missing from the novella

– and was necessary to it. What was she to do now? It was not the backbone of a story that she

lacked. It was backbone” (McEwan, 2007:320). Briony needs to confront the truth and include it in

her drafts. She admits later on that these techniques are not enough and ineffectual to conceal her

cowardice: “Did she really think she could hide behind some borrowed notions of modern writing,

and drown her guilt in a stream – three streams of consciousness?” (McEwan, 2007:320). At this

point, her characters are still pawns in her narratives without being fully developed. It is at this

point that Briony realises that her writing has to change. Laura Salisbury (2010:888) observes that

it is a “turning away from high modernist perspectivism to the putative reality of the movement of

things”. What Salisbury means is that Briony starts realising that there is a moral sense to be

found within the creation of a story or narrative. This maturation in her writing also reflects her

moral development, her sense of awareness and sensitivity towards others.

Briony stops at the church on Clapham Common where Lola and Marshall are getting married.

Ironically, Lola is wearing white and to anyone unaware of their deceit, she looks like an innocent

bride. Briony contemplates getting up at the request of the vicar to voice any impediments as to

why they should not get married. She decides against this: “But the scratches and bruises were

long healed, and all her own statements at the time were to the contrary. Nor did the bride appear

to be a victim, and she had her parents‟ consent” (McEwan, 2007:325). She realises that “the debt

was paid and that the verdict stood”. This inability to speak up must have contributed greatly to her

feelings of inadequacy and perhaps cowardice. The debt was paid by the innocent Robbie. Briony

still has to pay her debt. The scratches and bruises Laura sustained were healed, but Briony‟s

metaphorical scratches and bruises may never heal.

Briony finally reaches the place where Cecilia lives. The conversation between them is strained

and Briony realises that nobody would believe that she did not act out of malice. Cecilia‟s words:

“Don‟t worry. I won‟t ever forgive you” (McEwan, 2007:337) are particularly damning to Briony.

Robbie appears and is hostile towards Briony and insists that she write to her and Cecilia‟s parents

and also make a formal statement at a solicitor‟s office stating that she did wrong and to express

83

her desire to retract her evidence. The two lovers find out that they have wrongfully believed that

Danny Hardman was responsible for the rape of Lola when Briony informs them that the rapist was

in fact Paul Marshall. They too have misread the situation. Briony leaves despondent as she

reminisces about the tender way Cecilia used to speak to her whenever she had nightmares as a

child. She is aware of the fact that neither she nor the war has destroyed Cecilia and Robbie‟s

love for each other. This brings some sort of consolation to her. This enduring love reminds of

McEwan‟s words: “only love then oblivion”. That is if one believes the version of the lovers not

surviving the war and never being united. Briony leaves with a certainty of what to do: “she knew

what was required of her. Not simply a letter, but a new draft, an atonement, and she was ready to

begin” (McEwan, 2007:349).

4.5 Redemption

The terms redemption and atonement are both theological terms and are also closely related.

Redemption entails liberation from sin and its dire results or effects. Atonement is the principal

dogma of Christianity and it entails a restoration of harmony with God.

How can such redemption be possible for Briony, who does not believe in a deity? As mentioned

in the introduction of this dissertation, Boscaljon maintains that an all-powerful creator is not

necessary to redeem and that humans can decide on their own redemption. Ian McEwan‟s

Atonement follows the pattern of the individual‟s fall into sin (Briony‟s lie and subsequent inability to

see others as she sees herself) followed by feelings of guilt and a longing to be forgiven. What is

missing is the reconciliation with God. This is replaced by a secular redemption in the form of

writing her final draft.

Boscaljon (2007:762) discusses three alternatives that allow redemption to be guaranteed despite

the absence of a deity: suffering, death and time. McEwan employs two of these alternatives,

namely suffering (Briony‟s haunting feelings of guilt) and time. It took Briony five years to make the

decision to retract her previous damning statement, and a lifetime of writing and re-writing her final

draft. Although her death is not necessary for her to be redeemed, we know that her death is

imminent as she is suffering from vascular dementia. Another possibility discussed by Boscaljon is

storytelling as a way of finding redemption. As example, Shelley‟s Frankenstein is mentioned in

which the traditional possibilities of death and suffering are redundant because Victor Frankenstein

dies before the monster‟s downfall and the monster does not find relief in Victor‟s death. Boscaljon

(2007:766-767) seems to suggest that death limits the scope of redemption to the person who

dies, whereas storytelling has a wider scope, redeeming others as well. Frankenstein feels that if

he is able to dissuade another from a life of sin, his life will actually have some meaning. Briony‟s

draft will serve not only as an atonement for her sins, but also as an atonement to the other guilty

parties and their future generations.

84

4.5.1 Religious versus secular confession

D‟Hoker in an article entitled “Confession and Atonement in contemporary Fiction: J. M. Coetzee,

John Banville, and Ian McEwan” points to the differences between religious and literary (secular)

confession (2006:31-32). D‟Hoker refers to Foster‟s distinction in his book Confession and

complicity in narrative. Foster (1987:2) maintains that in religious confession “the forms are purely

conventional, an acknowledgement of the predictable, almost ritualistic nature of sin”. Sins need

not be specified, but the sinful nature of the confessor needs to be acknowledged. Submission to

the sacrament is all that is needed to be absolved (1987:3). D‟Hoker sees secular confession as

subordinate to religious confession, because despite the presence of a reader or listener there are

no authorities invested with the power to redeem. How valid is such atonement when considered

from a Christian point of view?

Jacobi (2011:64) in an article entitled, “Who killed Robbie and Cecilia? Reading and Misreading

Ian McEwan‟s Atonement” mentions that the Catholic sacrament previously called Penance and

now called Reconciliation is thought to restore the penitent‟s soul to its former condition. He also

says that there is no indication that this purging will undo the wrong done in the secular world. He

uses the example of a child murderer who receives a death penalty, but this will never bring back

the child. The murderer may believe that after his execution, God may redeem his sins. However,

Briony is an atheist and therefore cannot appeal to any deity for reconciliation: “No atonement for

God, or novelists, even if they are atheists. It was always an impossible task, and that was

precisely the point. The attempt was all” (McEwan, 2007:371). What Briony is acknowledging

here is that what has been done cannot be undone on earth. In other words, whether one believes

in the existence of a higher authority that may redeem or not, a wrong cannot be undone. Jacobi

also mentions the fact that Catholic priests usually lay certain tasks to the penitent, which upon

completion would result in reconciliation with God. This is not the case with Briony, as Cecilia tells

her that she will never forgive her. All Briony can in fact do is to repent through her writing. The

lovers will not forgive her, but she may forgive herself. Schemberg (2004:81) notes that if Briony

understood from the outset that there could be no possibility of atonement for her, the attempt to

achieve atonement would be sufficient.

D‟Hoker maintains that this absence of ritual in secular confession makes truth all the more

important. This truth refers to the revelation of the inner self. D‟Hoker discusses the confessional

fictions of a few contemporary authors. John Banville‟s narrator, Victor Maskell in The

untouchable, uses the metaphor of self-restoration when he exposes himself in the following

passage: “ I shall strip away layer after layer of grime – the toffee-coloured varnish and caked soot

left by a life-time of dissembling – until I come to the very thing itself and know it for what it is. My

soul. My self” (cited in D‟Hoker:2006:34). In this confession, Maskell grants authority to Miss

85

Vandeleur to dispose of his confession. In McEwan‟s Atonement it is up to the reader to grant

Briony absolution or not. The reader is invested with power to judge whether the confessor is

sincere and to subsequently grant absolution to the confessor. Here, many factors such as pre-

conceived ideas, experience, education and culture come into play that will determine a reader‟s

response. An interesting observation comes from Kathleen D‟Angelo (2009:102), strengthening

the notion that the reader holds the final say. She observes that Briony‟s dementia will eventually

result in her losing her memory, which is equivalent to a literal „death of the author‟ after which only

the text will remain. The reader is then ultimately responsible for interpreting the text.

Briony‟s writing or final draft of Atonement is her way of redeeming herself in the eyes of those she

betrayed, namely Robbie and Cecilia. The last section of the novel is entitled London, 1999 and

this is where we learn that Briony is the author of the three sections. Some critics severely criticize

this sudden slip into the realms of postmodern writing and even call it “postmodern gimmickry”

(Finney, 2004:70). Finney (2004:73) maintains that the many allusions to other texts serve as a

warning not to see Atonement as a classic realist text. Austen‟s Northanger Abbey received some

mention earlier on. The parallels between Catherine Morland and Briony should also serve as

indicators to an educated reader that deception is part of this novel. There are also many

conflicting opinions regarding whether the two lovers actually survive or not. It remains uncertain

and doubtful, which makes the novel a perfect example of a postmodern product. There are no

clear answers and neat endings, but the end remains open-ended with many questions still

looming.

The last section starts with Briony going to the War Imperial Museum before attending her seventy-

seventh birthday to return material she has been using to write her final novel. Briony used

material given to her by lieutenants Mace and Nettle, who served with Robbie in the British

Expeditionary Forces in France. It is apparent that she took meticulous care to give an accurate

(though fictional) account of Robbie‟s suffering during the retreat to Dunkirk. If she deprived him of

his reputation during his life-time, she was going to grant him hero status in her novel. Briony

attends a performance at the place where she grew up – the Tallis estate that has been changed

into a hotel called Tilney Hotel (another reference to Northanger Abbey’s Tilney). The family

members are gathered here to celebrate Briony‟s birthday and as a special treat to her, The trials

of Arabella will be performed by the grand-children of those present. They will finally do what

Briony could not complete so many years before.

Briony‟s atonement comes through repeated drafts of her novel. It literally took her a life-time to

complete. She comments: “The earliest version, January 1940, the latest, March 1999, and in

between, half a dozen different drafts […] My fifty-nine-year assignment is over” (McEwan,

2007:369). The reader is informed that the lovers were never reunited, that Robbie died of

86

septicaemia resulting from his wounds, Cecilia was killed in the bombing of London in Balham

Underground Station and that Briony never saw them in that year. She mentions earlier that: “I‟ve

regarded it as my duty to disguise nothing – the names, the places, the exact circumstances – I put

it all there as a matter of historical record” (McEwan, 2007:369). Briony presented these

characters previously through the clouded lens of her imagination. Now she attempts to portray

them with the necessary compassion and truth that she denied them at first. Finney (2004:81)

concurs that she is “abandoning the imaginary for the symbolic order”. He continues to say that

her final draft, in which the lovers are united, is “her fictional and imaginative attempt to do what

she failed to do at the time – project herself into the feelings and thoughts of these others, to grant

them an authentic existence outside of her own life‟s experiences” (Finney, 2004:81).

From beginning to end this novel is concerned with fiction and the making of fiction. This

necessarily also involves the reader and Briony also caters for the reader who still harbours

romantic notions about fiction or by implication, life. She writes: “I know there‟s always a certain

kind of reader who will be compelled to ask, But what really happened? The answer is simple: the

lovers survive and flourish. As long as there is a single copy, a solitary typescript of my final draft,

then my spontaneous, fortuitous sister and her medical prince survive to love” (McEwan,

2007:371). This is the only way in which Briony can pay her debt. She robbed the lovers of

happiness during their life-time, but in fiction she can rekindle that hope they once had. They may

have died, but in her novel they will live forever.

On the last page, Briony reflects on her motives and she informs the reader that she likes to think

that she is not being evasive or weak when constructing such a happy ending. She never granted

herself forgiveness from the lovers though, and Finney (2004:82) sees this as proof of her finally

being able to imagine what it feels like to be another. Briony shows caritas (love for thy neighbour)

in her attempt to atone for her sin. She is at last able to heed “the other” as equal. She says at the

beginning of the novel: “It wasn‟t only wickedness and scheming that made people unhappy, it was

confusion and misunderstanding; above all, it was the failure to grasp the simple truth that other

people are as real as you” (McEwan, 2007:40). McEwan shows us that moral awareness is indeed

at the core of our humanity, whether portrayed through the microcosm of Briony‟s world or the

larger macrocosm of a world war.

It indeed remains the task of the reader to grant absolution to Briony or not. Shah (2009:43) insists

that Briony “is irredeemable: A human story cannot save a human story”. Briony herself admits

that atonement is impossible because of the absence of a deity. What is important though, is the

attempt (McEwan, 2007:371). Briony‟s atonement can be seen in the sense of “reconciliation with

self, being at one with oneself” (McEwan cited in D‟Hoker, 2006:42). Whether one grants Briony

absolution or not, one may at least admire the longing for redemption and the attempt to atone,

87

albeit on a secular level. Some readers may call into question the sincerity of Briony‟s desire for

forgiveness when taking into consideration that she is writing for an audience at the end. Is she

being sincere, or is she attempting to please the audience? Christians may have a belief in the

possibility of atonement and may long for a reassurance that forgiveness is possible, whereas for a

non-believer the attempt may be enough. This tolerance for and acceptance of differences link to

Vattimo‟s weak thought, in which he advocates tolerance in contrast to strong thought that is

totalizing.

88

Chapter 5: Visions, Faith Healing and Stigmata

Mariëtte in Ecstasy – Ron Hansen

Keeping Faith – Jodi Picoult

5

5.1 Introduction

This chapter deviates somewhat from the strategy thus far by comparing the work of two very

different novelists who deal with the same phenomena. Ron Hansen, unlike the novelists

discussed previously, is a devout Catholic and the “contemporary culture” of disbelief has

motivated him to make religion the central theme of his work (Gandolfo, 2007:144). Hansen, in an

interview with Bob Faw (PBS, 2012), said that writing is a witness to what God is doing in the world

and there is no better way to worship and praise. He believes that fiction and religion have the

same goals and one of these goals is to show how to live a moral life and how to avoid an immoral

one, but without the didacticism.

Jodi Picoult, on the other hand, is a non-believer. She hails from a non-observant Jewish

background and she is married to a non-practising Protestant. According to Picoult, she got the

impetus for Keeping Faith when her own son enquired about God. Kyle was five at the time and

asked the question: “What‟s God?” Her response was quite a secular one of God living in heaven

and watching over us, the clichéd answer many modern parents give when suddenly confronted

with such a theological question. Kyle observed that that is kind of like a baby-sitter and Picoult

agreed. His next observation triggered another idea when he said that most baby-sitters are

female. In her novel, Faith White also sees her “guard” as female. This is of course ample reason

for controversy and the idea of a female God is something unheard of for the Church. Picoult

mentions the fact that she wants to look at belief rather than religion. As mentioned before, this

emphasis on belief rather than religion is at the heart of the postmodern concept of spirituality.

She very aptly touches on the notion of tolerance within plurality when she poses the question of

what if we were able to entertain someone else‟s point of view about God. Multiple perspectives

are integrated in the novel and thus a platform is created for competing voices (Picoult, 2008).

Both these novels deal with manifestations of the supernatural, but they belong to very different

categories of fiction. Jodi Picoult is regarded as a novelist of popular fiction and Ron Hansen is a

literary novelist. There is no clear-cut definition that can separate popular from literary fiction

because there are many grey areas in which characteristics overlap. Keeping the two novels,

89

Mariëtte in ecstasy and Keeping Faith in mind, a few differences will be highlighted. Literary fiction

endeavours to find some truth regarding the human condition and emphasis is more on the

process rather than on the story. Popular fiction seeks escapism rather than complicated

ambiguity and abstract concepts embedded in prosaic language. In other words, technique is

more important than story for the literary novelist. Anita Gandolfo (2007:144) comments on the

distinction by saying that although Picoult‟s novels are engaging, they are “relatively weak from an

aesthetic perspective”, whereas Hansen‟s prose is “exquisite and the novel is expertly crafted”.

Hansen‟s use of language evokes reflection and probes the reader to find the substance of a

character, in contrast to Picoult‟s language, which tends to be simply utilitarian in order to convey

facts.

When comparing two descriptive passages from the novels, one notices the difference in the

power of the words to convey images. The reader finds the description of Ian Fletcher, the atheist

in Keeping Faith, revealing, but it does not entice the reader to get to know the character, as he

remains a brief summary:

He developed a large following and cultivated a reputation as Spokesman of the Millennium Generation – those cynical Americans who had neither the time nor the inclination to trust in God for their future. He was opinionated, brash, and bull-headed […] But clearly Ian Fletcher‟s greatest attribute – the one that endeared him to women of all ages and made him a natural for the small screen – was the fact that he was handsome as sin (Picoult, 2008:30).

What lacks here is language that effectively describes the atmosphere. Ian Fletcher‟s main

qualities are mentioned, but the reader is not transported to a deeper understanding. It remains a

rather flat description of a typical anti-Christ figure with only slight references to his arrogant

character and his physical attractiveness. Richard Terrell (2002:254) mentions the fact that literary

fiction has a presence in the words that impels the reader to take a closer look and that goes

beyond “mere temporary encounter”. He maintains that a description of Mother Saint-Raphaël in

Mariëtte in ecstasy does not just capture the essence of the character, but also conveys

information about the cloistered life:

Mother Saint-Raphaël tugs her plain white nightgown up over her head. She is hugely overweight but her legs are slight as a goat‟s. Tightly sashed around her stomach just below the great green-veined bowls of her breasts are cuttings from the French garden‟s rosebushes, the dark thorns sticking into skin that is scarlet with infection. She gets into a gray habit, tying it with a sudden jerk. She winces and shuts her eyes (Hansen, 1995:5-6).

This physical description emphasizes her age with its harsh realities and almost repels the reader,

something that is connected to her sometimes unpleasant character later on. The passage reveals

mortification practices of the convent and the longing to feel pain for Christ. Terrell (2002:254)

comments on the presence of “irony of humble and worn flesh doggedly pursuing a spiritual

90

vocation”. The impressions Hansen leaves are lasting, whereas Picoult provides the reader with a

temporary escape. This does not mean that the one novel is preferable to the other. It entirely

depends on the type of reader and his or her tastes. These two novels indeed attract two very

different types of readers. Both novels deal with the same inexplicable phenomena, but Picoult‟s

reader is still someone more interested in light-hearted reading rather than Hansen‟s more

academic, serious reader. This, however, is a distinction that cannot be generalized. Hansen, in

an interview with Dale Brown, mentioned the fact that it is impossible to predict an audience and he

spoke about a Jewish book group that attended a reading of Mariëtte in Ecstasy (Brown,

2008:150). Some may find this rather unusual considering the all-pervasive Catholic content of the

novel. However, if one considers the audience of, for example, The satanic verses, it may not be

unusual at all. Hansen‟s novel does attract the more academic, serious reader, although

paradoxically Hansen was concerned at first whether he would not be ridiculed for his inclusion of

the supernatural in academic circles. He reveals this doubt in an interview with Shirley Nelson

(1995:82). The reason for this concern is the fact that the supernatural remains suspect to some in

a secular art form. Dennis Taylor (2010) mentions the fact that “no language is more subject to

parody” than religious language. This is a point on which Sara Maitland (2000:77) also touches on

when she refers to the comic portrayal of religious characters in general. Her views and the

reasons she gives for believing that the novel is not the best vehicle for conveying religious content

feature later on in the discussion.

The settings and fictional historical periods for the two novels also differ significantly. Picoult‟s

novel is set in an American secular household in New Canaan in 1999, whereas Hansen‟s novel is

set in a sacred, French convent in upstate New York where an almost exclusive female cast

speaks Latin. The historical period of Hansen‟s novel is 1906. Interesting is that 90 years

separate these novels fictionally, yet they address the same inexplicable phenomena. Faith and

reason clash and the novels include many characters that represent the two opposing viewpoints.

In both novels the reader is reminded that the extraordinary co-exists alongside the mundane.

Both novels portray a nostalgia for the miraculous and the desire to give space to the miraculous

without being guided to believe in it. As stated in the introduction to this dissertation, these

novelists do not intend to spread superstition. If anything, they present a very sceptical, heedful

perspective on phenomena such as visions, faith healing and stigmata. Tate (2008:68) concurs

that if “disruptive miraculous events in realist contemporary fiction represent what Brian McHale

has named „the ontological dominant‟ of postmodern poetics, they also engender a slight return to

the modernist emphasis on epistemology”. As a result the novels culminate in a sort of blurred

religion with elements of piety, traditional belief, scepticism and outright disbelief. What is

interesting in both novels is that scepticism does not come exclusively from the unbelieving camp,

but from the Roman Catholic hierarchy itself. This seems like a strategy to prove once again the

91

immense difficulty in presenting such supernatural phenomena and subsequently defending their

authenticity.

5.2 Contextualization

Ron Hansen got his inspiration for his novel Mariëtte in ecstasy from reading the autobiography of

Therese of Lisieux called The Story of a Soul. In an interview with Shirley Nelson Hansen calls it a

“portrayal of a young woman‟s ardent love for God” (cited in Nelson, 1995:82). Parallels between

Therese and Mariëtte are that they were born more or less during the same time, they both lost

their mothers to cancer at a young age, they both had sisters who joined a religious order before

them and they both were prone to emotional outbursts before their respective entries into the

convents. Hansen said that he found it a page-turner even though nothing much happened. He

considered the fact that there are so few of these [religious] novels and thought of himself as a

good candidate for writing such a novel (cited in Nelson, 1995:82). Therese of Lisieux entered the

cloistered life as a nun at the tender age of 15. What must have impressed Hansen was her

complete devotion to God, her longing to understand His passion and her insistence on simplicity.

Mariëtte Baptiste, a 17-year-old postulant enters the priory of the Sisters of the Crucifixion in 1906.

Prior to her admission, she lives with her father, Dr Baptiste. Her mother died of cancer when she

was very young and she has one other sibling who is twenty years her senior. Her sister Celine is

Mother Superior, the current prioress of the convent called Our Lady of Sorrows. Mariëtte has

always been a rather strange child and her otherness is constantly mentioned. Her father, who is a

physician and against her also entering the convent, tells the nuns facts about her that may make

them believe that she is not a perfect candidate for a religious life: “I have a letter from Father that

accuses you of being too high-strung for our convent. And he is troubled by gossip from friends

and patients about trances, hallucinations, unnatural piety, great extremes of temperament, and,

as he put it, inner wrenchings” (Hansen, 1995:31). Dr Baptiste refers to Mariëtte having a

reputation for acting hysterically and being overtly devout.

These reservations her father has can be a warning to the reader that her supernatural

experiences could be the result of hysteria or pretence. The seed of doubt is introduced by a

sceptic, and in this case her father, who is a man of science. Mariëtte relates her longing to

understand Christ‟s passion to Père Marriott, the priest of the convent, by telling him that she has

been praying to understand His passion since she was 13. She also communicates her underlying

desire to have God‟s gifts (stigmata) to Marriott: “To have a horrible illness so I could feel the

horrors and terrors of death just as Christ did” (Hansen, 1995:40). Carla A. Arnell (2007, 183) in

an article entitled “Wild writing: Holy stigmata and the aesthetics of “sacred pain” in Ron Hansen‟s

Mariëtte in ecstasy” refers to the words of Burton where he mentions the urgent desire of many

92

French, Catholic women during 1840 to 1970 to experience the suffering of Christ not just for their

“own individual experience”, but more pertinently for their “non-believing fellow countrymen and

women” in order to “redeem them – literally, buy them back – from the clutches of the enemy”. As

mentioned in chapter 4 of this dissertation, suffering is a traditional form of redemption. This pain

or suffering is of course different in that it is entirely wished for.

There are 36 women in the priory and Hansen dedicates a page to the name, responsibility and

age of each one. In doing so he introduces the very structured hierarchy of the convent. Hansen

also gives an exact account of the rigorous daily schedule the nuns follow. It is understandable

that any disruption, whether sacred or not, will not be tolerated easily, as the convent is a place of

placidity and reverence. The ages of the nuns vary from 17 to 81 and in a way age seems to be a

factor dividing the opinions regarding the authenticity of Mariëtte‟s stigmata later on. The older

nuns see her as a charlatan or fraud, whereas the younger ones see her as a saint. What is

important though is that she makes an impression on everyone as she is decisively otherworldly,

whether a fraud or a saint. Her sister, Mother Celine, dies within months of her entry into the priory

and Mariëtte starts experiencing the stigmata immediately after this event on Christmas Day. This

phenomenon is seen as a disruption to the mundane, orderly lives of the nuns and she is expelled

soon after in February 1907.

Whereas Hansen found inspiration for his novel in decidedly scared content, namely the

autobiography of Therese Lisieux, Picoult found her inspiration in a very secular moment, namely

her own son‟s questioning about God. This prompted her to write the story of Faith White, a

seven-year-old girl who claims to have seen God, has healing powers and exhibits stigmata. As

mentioned before, the cloistered confines of a convent is an environment where the supernatural is

more expected than in a secular household.

The title of the novel is ambiguous in the sense that it could either refer to Mariah White literally

keeping her daughter Faith after a very nasty custody battle, or it could be interpreted in a more

figurative sense as asking whether it is possible to believe (keep faith) in the manifestation of

supernatural phenomena. The Whites live in New Canaan and are in many respects an ordinary

family. Mariah is from Jewish offspring and is married to Colin White, a Protestant. Neither of

them is involved in religion and like many contemporary parents they do not instruct their child in

religion in any way. Faith has no knowledge of God, the Bible or any doctrines. The family falls

apart after Mariah discovers that Colin is once again having an affair. The parents separate and

shortly afterwards Faith claims to have an imaginary friend whom she calls her “guard.” The guard

is described as “a person wearing a long white nightgown who is sitting across from her” (Picoult,

2008:37). A psychiatrist points out that she may in fact be seeing God and she bases her

observation on the fact that these two words “guard” and God are phonetically similar. Another

93

shocking revelation is that her God is female. Father Rampini is tasked to investigate Faith White‟s

claims. He is especially upset about the claim that God is female: “The idea of a female God does

not sit well with Father Rampini […] but to say that God is visiting her in a clearly female form […]

certainly it is heresy” (Picoult, 2008:224). Tate (2008:75) observes that “Picoult is not just

concerned with testing the secular limits of modern fiction but also with questioning the linguistic

conventions that govern the representation of God”. In other words, Picoult is posing the possibility

that God may be female, and should therefore be referred to in linguistically correct terms as

she/her. Cupitt (1998:82) refers to this all male dominance by saying the “dominant, ruling-class

ethos is institutional, priestly, and patriarchal [...] This tradition, the tradition of „the Fathers,‟ is

highly masculinist”. It could be that Faith‟s vision of God is simply a feminine image of Christ, but

Picoult provides opportunity for questions that have been probed in postmodern society regarding

the gender of God. One such novel that portrays a definite female God is William P. Young‟s The

shack. Mack is confronted with this female God: “As she stepped back, Mack found himself

involuntarily squinting in her direction, as if doing so would allow his eyes to see her better”

(Young, 2007:84).

The fact that Faith mentions Catholic saints to a psychiatrist further strengthens the authenticity of

her claims: “Faith mentioned some names to me today: Herman Joseph, from Steinfeld. Elizabeth

from Schonau. Juliana Falconieri,” (Picoult, 2008:55). As stated in the novel, there is no way she

could have heard of them at home, or for that matter at school as schools in America do not

instruct learners religiously. Another uncanny, disconcerting detail concerning Faith‟s claims is that

her “guard” tells her to read I.I. Swerbeh because the book is about her. A librarian with

knowledge of children reversing letters points out that Faith actually means Hebrews 11:1 which

reads: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Bible,

2001). The emphasis here is on things not seen, the supernatural or in Lyotard‟s words “the

incommensurable.”

Faith not only has visions of a female God, but also seems to have the ability to heal. There are a

few occasions mentioned in the novel such as her healing her grandmother, Millie Epstein, after

suffering a heart attack and having been declared dead. She is also credited with healing an Aids

baby and being responsible for Ian Fletcher, the tele-atheist‟s autistic brother, to have a lucid

moment and coherent conversation with Ian. Faith also experiences stigmata and eventually

becomes very sick. After a long, drawn-out court case between her parents in which they both

want custody of Faith, an agreement is reached. Mariah is at one point accused of suffering from

Munchausen Syndrome, which means that she deliberately harms her own child to draw attention

to herself. This is refuted after Faith miraculously recovers while she has been in contact with her

mother. A truce is reached between Faith‟s parents and she stops seeing God. A typical Freudian

94

interpretation could be that she used her “guard” as a crutch and this father figure (God) is not

needed anymore after the resolve of the family crisis.

5.3 Belief versus unbelief

Mariëtte in ecstasy

Both novels have an array of people with varying beliefs or disbeliefs. The spectrum is not always

so clear-cut or binary and some characters hover in a kind of liminal space that is representative of

postmodern society. Mark Taylor (1984:5) remarks that many people are suspended “between the

loss of old certainties and the discovery of new beliefs, these people constantly live on the border

that joins and separates belief and unbelief”. These differing belief systems create tension and

cause the reader to ask many questions. Interesting is that these binary viewpoints are portrayed

in such a way that the reader does not feel compelled to believe in any one. In both novels, the

supernatural invades everyday, routine life. This reminds of Salman Rushdie‟s conviction that

realism is inadequate to explain the miraculous and that a form should be created to accommodate

the miraculous alongside the mundane (Rushdie, 1991:376). This is the case in both novels as

Hansen and Picoult create a platform for the miraculous within the secular. Updike echoes and

confirms Rushdie‟s ideas in that literature should incorporate the supernatural even if it is produced

by an unbelieving mind: “[…] it remains curiously true that the literary artist, to achieve full

effectiveness, must assume a religious state of mind – a state that looks beyond worldly standards

of success and failure. A mood of exultation should possess the language, a vatic tension and

rapture” (cited in Tate, 2008:7).

Contrary to the belief that the inexplicable, and by implication then religion, should be incorporated

into the modern novel, are those who believe that the novel as secular form is inadequate for such

an enterprise. One such sceptic is Sara Maitland (2000:78) who asks the question why the novel

is so “singularly bad at recording, exploring and testing religious experience, theological ideologies

or faith-based motivations”. She gives a few reasons for her point of view: the postmodern novel

places too much emphasis on the self that is self-sufficient; a desire for closure that is in contrast to

religion, which is infinite and does not have endings but just openings; the belief that there is no

grand narrative and that all texts are equal and finally her belief that postmodern society is

incapable of using symbols in order to talk about transcendence. She believes that if our current

society fails to interpret symbols no experiences of the divine Other can be inserted into the

contemporary novel (Maitland, 2000: 79-92). Although Maitland gives valid reasons for her

dismissal of the novel form as a vehicle for spirituality, some novelists, as indicated in this

dissertation, are successful in giving space to spirituality in the form of religious themes and more

specifically in this chapter, the inclusion of the miraculous. The success lies in the way these

95

phenomena are introduced – subtly and in a secular context, which renders them more credibility

than if they were introduced in a wholly otherworldly environment. This co-existence of the

miraculous and the mundane can be traced back to the Bible. There are many examples of

ordinary people who encounter the supernatural. Noah heard the voice of God urging him to build

the ark; Jacob wrestled with an angel and also said that he had seen God and Moses heard the

voice of God in the burning bush. Ancient Biblical miracles are somehow more acceptable to

contemporary people than those ostensibly happening today. This matter is addressed in these

novels in that both pay attention to the spectrum of belief and unbelief.

Mariëtte Baptiste enters the priory of The Sisters of the Crucifixion as a postulant and is ecstatically

happy for the opportunity to be in the service of God. Her father, Claude Baptiste, is not happy

about her joining the convent. Hansen describes the disdain he feels while Mariëtte is preparing to

leave for her vocation: “Dr. Claude Baptiste stands at a kitchen window in red silk pyjamas,

drinking chicory in the sunrise, looking outside as if his hate were there, hearing Mariëtte just

above him” (Hansen, 1995:9). His disdain is not for his daughter, but for the fact that religion is

claiming his second daughter. Arnell (2007:185) says that Hansen describes “his accoutrements

as reflecting his taste for civilized niceties [silk pyjamas] and his complacent contentment with fine

things”. This is in stark contrast to the prevailing status quo at the convent where there are no

worldly indulgences and emphasis is on austerity. Dr Baptiste is also conspicuously absent at the

solemn procession taking the bride towards her bridegroom for the spiritual wedding between

Jesus and Mariëtte Baptiste. At another stage he visits his daughters on All Soul‟s Day and is

described as “hulking behind the iron grille in a handsome Kashmir overcoat, an inch of Murad

cigarette held inside his hand and grayly hazing the room with its reek” (Hansen, 1995:77).

Hansen‟s language in this regard makes it seems almost as if Baptiste is an intrusion into the

sacred confines of the convent. His Kashmir coat points again to his indulgence of secular luxuries

and the smell of his cigarette is described as a “reek”, which refers to an unpleasant stench. He is

contaminating the purity of this religious order. The “iron grille” creates a definite separation, which

can be seen as the separation between sacred and secular. Mariëtte is elusive when he asks her

questions about her stay at the convent because she knows it will hurt him to hear that she is

happy. She sees his presence as an obstruction, maybe a hindrance to her spiritual life in the

sense that she feels guilty of having deserted him and her only concern is her passionate love for

Christ. He is seen as “frontally there, so forceful and huge and masculine” (Hansen, 1995:78).

The new prioress, Mother Saint-Raphaël, calls Claude Baptiste to examine a very sick Mother

Celine. Although he is dressed very elegantly and smells of musk and civet, the odour of illness

from his patients still clings to him. The stench is so overwhelming that “Sister Aimèe has cupped

a palm over her nose and Sister Philomène inches back her chair half a foot” (Hansen, 1995:95).

96

He seems out of place here, and bringing with him the evils (diseases) of the secular world.

Baptiste gives the sisters a look of “haughty shock and disdain” when told that Mother Celine has

been vomiting for six days. Their inaction simply baffles him and he cannot comprehend it. It is

not explicitly stated, but he is disgusted by the nuns‟ belief that God will cure her when clearly she

is in need of medical science.

After Mariëtte experiences the stigmata, her father comes to examine her. She refuses on the

grounds that “Christ has forbidden them [stigmata] to science” (Hansen, 1995:140). His answer to

this is that she is talking idiotically. The existence of stigmata is to his scientific mind preposterous,

and he dismisses such an idea completely. Allowing him to examine the stigmata could have

strengthened her case immensely, but one has to keep in mind that proving herself to anyone is

never her objective. At the request of the prioress her father eventually examines her. At that

stage the stigmata have miraculously healed without leaving any scars. This is a regular

occurrence, which will be discussed in another section on the stigmata. Her explanation to that

was that Christ has taken back his wounds. Baptiste replies replied with “you have all been duped”

(Hansen, 1995:173). Claude Baptiste represents the man of science who adheres to the

correspondence theory mentioned earlier in this dissertation, namely what one does not see, does

not exist. He is the arbitrator of her dismissal in that the voice of science seems to triumph over

that of the supernatural.

Throughout the novel, there are fragments of conversations with Mariëtte and other nuns in order

to ascertain the validity of her claims or to establish what type of character she is. During one such

session she is asked whether she was happy to have received so much attention at the ceremony

and she comments that she wasn‟t and that she really hoped for humility and plainness. This

comment points to her being different and not fitting into the form that most want to place her in.

She is not after fame or recognition. She also comments on the fact that the sisters were passing

harsh judgements even then. It is clear that right from the start that there are tensions, doubts and

jealousies. Mother Saint-Raphaël is the Mistress of Novices and thus in charge of them and

Mariëtte as postulant. She is suspicious of the postulant, but towards the end it seems that she

believes in the authenticity of Mariëtte‟s claims. Anita Gandolfo (2007:145) mentions the fact that

the “strongest dissent is voiced by representatives of institutional religion”. This is apparent in both

novels and raises the question to which extent anyone can still believe in the supernatural

phenomena if those deeply embedded in the church are suspicious. Mother Saint-Raphaël has

mixed feelings about Mariëtte. At the postulant‟s first mass, it is said that “she stares at the too-

pretty postulant and is surprised that she‟s weeping with happiness” (Hansen, 1995:13). She sees

Mariëtte‟s beauty as a possible obstacle to religious piety, but is surprised at her genuine devotion.

This is perhaps a vague echo of the patriarchal concept of the fact that beauty is not reconcilable

97

with piety and associated with sin. Mother Saint-Raphaël scolds Mariëtte for having written a too

decorative essay about her yearning for a spiritual life. She warns her “that we teach a plain style

of writing” (Hansen, 1995:49). She repeatedly reminds the postulant that the emphasis is on

simplicity: “Let us therefore be wary of hallucinations and tricks and whatever seems wonderful and

surprising. And let us remember that sainthood has little to do with the preternatural but a great

deal to do with the simple day-to-day practice of Christian virtues” (Hansen, 1995:134). This

stance is in a way understandable as she has to preserve the sanctity of the priory against

excesses that could be motivated by psychological disorders, hysteria or attention seeking. Her

own confusion regarding the alleged wounds of Christ is expressed in the following words:

„I see no possible reason for it. Is it so that Mariëtte Baptiste will be praised and esteemed by the pious? Or is it she will be humiliated and jeered at by sceptics. Is it to honor religion or to humble science? And what are these horrible wounds really? A trick of anatomy, a bleeding challenge to medical diagnosis, a brief and baffling injury that hasn‟t yet in six hundred years, changed our theology or religious practices. Have you any idea how disruptive you‟ve been? You are awakening hollow talk and half-formed opinions that have no place in our priory and I have no idea why God would be doing this to us. To you‟ (Hansen, 1995: 160).

Wendorf (2004:51) makes the observation that “the voices of science, psychology, and religion are

not opposed here in their different perspectives – they are all equally confounded”. Mother Saint

Raphaël‟s actions are, however, motivated towards the common good and society takes

precedence over the individual.

She is guilty of limiting God because He acts in ways contrary to what she expects. Peter Prescott

(1991:66) says that the neophyte is a “threat to the community: to order, discipline, authority,

enclosure and poverty (the town‟s people bring gifts)”. Mother Saint-Raphaël ironically concurs

with Dr Baptiste that there is no medical explanation for the stigmata, even though she and most

other nuns were witness to their manifestation. This results in Mariëtte‟s expulsion. She does,

however, in private admit to Mariëtte that she believes in her: “I personally believe that what you

say happened did indeed happen. We could never prove it, of course. Sceptics will always

prevail. God gives us just enough to seek Him, and never enough to fully find Him” (Hansen,

1995:174). Her words remind of Lyotard‟s notion of the sublime:

The postmodern would be that which […] puts forward the unpresentable in presentation itself; that which denies itself the solace of good forms, the consensus of a taste which would make it possible to share collectively the nostalgia for the unattainable; that which searches for new presentations, not in order to enjoy them but in order to impart a stronger sense of the unpresentable (Lyotard, 1984:81).

Fiction as such cannot prove the validity of the supernatural, but that is not reason enough for its

exclusion in the contemporary novel. Novelists aspire to present the unpresentable in order to

98

satisfy a very real desire in postmodern society – an ache for the spiritual. Père Marriott gives

voice to that desire: “We mortals have such a great hunger for supernatural things” (Hansen,

1995:148). One has to also acknowledge that at the same time there is a hunger for spirituality as

well as sensationalism.

Père Marriott is Mariëtte‟s spiritual father here on earth and she confides in him through letters.

Unfortunately her sister, the prioress, intercepts them and they never reach him. He feels

sympathetic towards her, but also takes the easy way out in that he agrees with Mother Saint-

Raphaël and Dr Baptiste in the end. In a conversation with Mariëtte he hints at the possibility of

stigmata being the result of a psychological condition: “And it is often hard to tell whether these

things are not just illusions brought on by abnormal sensibilities and neurosis” (Hansen, 1995:127).

These “abnormal sensibilities and neurosis” are probably what her father referred to earlier on.

Ariel Glucklich (2001:84) affirms that during the “late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries there

was a strong tendency to link some phenomena of mystical ecstasies with psychological

pathology, particularly hysteria. The church itself had struggled for centuries to distinguish

between mystical experience and various forms of insanity, such as epilepsy, possession, humoral

imbalance, and others.” Father Marriott has many baffling questions that he asks her: “Is the

human personality one component of the mystery? We don‟t know. And why are there so many

women and so few men? And how is it that the great contemplative orders, the Carthusians, the

Trappists, the Benedictines, have practically no examples of the phenomena?” (Hansen,

1995:127).

Hansen seems to emphasize that there are no answers to these questions. The rhetorical

questions force the reader to contemplate the validity of such questions and they perhaps sow

doubt. Père Marriott admits that he is unable to provide satisfactory answers and he tries to find

them by making comparisons. He seems to understand that Mariëtte is an inexplicable enigma.

Arnell (2007:190) observes that she “springs up among her convent sisters like a wildflower

trespassing in a cultivated garden”. During a conversation with Père Marriot dramatic irony is

evident as the reader realises what he does not: “that Mariëtte is a kind of wildflower – beautiful to

behold, but difficult to understand” (Arnell, 2007:191). Mother Saint-Raphaël tells her: “There‟s a

great deal about you that troubles me” (Hansen, 1995:65). The reader does not get to know

Mariëtte and Hansen keeps her elusive to both the other characters and the reader. Prescott

(1991:66) mentions that “although Mariëtte is the pivot on which the story turns, Hansen doesn‟t

want us to know her very well. He‟s interested in her only as an agent dropped into a culture, and

her effect on it.” Her evasive character is reflected in the inexplicability and mysterious nature of

her wounds. Mariӫ tte remains an enigma to her sister.

99

Her sister intercepts yet another letter Mariëtte has written to Père Marriott and she thinks: “She‟s

impossible. She‟s too many people. She‟s too many shades and meanings. She‟ll only do herself

harm” (Hansen, 1995:76). Even to her sister, the neophyte remains opaque and unsettling. It is

never clear what exactly the prioress believes concerning the stigmata and ecstasies. However,

one can guess that she knows that such phenomena and claims would be detrimental to Mariëtte‟s

desire to become a nun. She is protective of her sister and acts in Mariëtte‟s best interest, which is

probably not to be known as eccentric, a charlatan or worse as a hysteric. At one point she

playfully admits that Mariëtte might be a saint: “You‟re my sister, but I don‟t understand you. You

aren‟t understandable […] You may be a saint. Saints are like that, I think. Elusive. Other.

Upsetting” (Hansen, 1995:92). Another nun comments: “In her I seem to behold someone not of

this world” (Hansen, 1995:142). Père Marriott, after having seen the stigmata and Mariëtte in a

trance, utters the words: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord” (Hansen, 1995:117). These words

appear in Luke 1:38 when Mary accepts to be Christ‟s servant. This is proof of his belief in her

devotion, but this also hints at divine eros, a concept the study will discuss in due time. Père

Marriott is convinced that these supernatural phenomena are mystical in their origin. His final

opinion is ambiguous when he says: “I don‟t believe it‟s possible. I do believe it happened”

(Hansen, 1995:130). In other words, he does not believe in the possibility of such phenomena, but

he admits that Mariëtte is wholly other and through her as vehicle these supernatural phenomena

are possible.

The nuns are divided in their opinions regarding Mariëtte. Some are completely infatuated with

her, admiring her extreme piety, while others believe her to be a fraud. She radiates an

extraordinary beauty and purity, which is reason enough to breed resentment where women are

present. Some are motivated by jealousy, while others seem to have unnatural affections for her.

Some of these women have spent a life-time in the service of God and feel resentment that a

neophyte seems to be more pious and favoured by Christ. One of Mariëtte‟s staunchest

supporters is Sister Hermance. While they are planting vegetables, Hermance thinks: “We will

have a bounty. Everything she touches will grow” (Hansen, 1995:52). Sister Emmanuelle admires

the postulant‟s beauty: “she‟s as pretty as affection” but with a tinge of jealousy “She is who I was

meant to be” (Hansen, 1995:57). Sister Philomène is positive that Mariëtte is a saint during an

interrogation session. Sister Saint-Denis comments on her Christian radiance: “Christ shines from

her. She is Christian perfection. She is lovely in every way” (Hansen, 1995:68). Interestingly

enough these observations regarding Mariëtte are made before the appearance of the stigmata. A

very effective technique Hansen uses is the interrogation of the other nuns in order to shed light on

the postulant. We are given fragments of her through their answers.

100

On the other side of the spectrum are Sister Fèlicité, who comments: “While I have enjoyed our

sister‟s humor, she is at times distracting”; Sister Saint-Pierre: “She is a daily temptation to

intimacies and particular attachments”; Sister Saint-Raphaël: “…she has been a snare and a

terrible impediment to the peace and interests of the Holy Spirit”; Sister Anne: “She‟s lied about a

hundred things, not just this. She gets up close to windows at night so she can admire her pretty

self like in mirrors. And I smelt perfume on her too” (Hansen, 1995:87,142). A very insidious

attack on Mariëtte‟s reputation is made by a nun who comes to confession to Père Marriott and

disguises her voice: “Every sentence slightly changes in tone, as if she were trying to disguise her

sultry voice […] She stole things from the infirmary. Chemicals and instruments. When she was

taking care of Mother Celine. And she‟s good at science. She got it from her father. Everything

else is from the Devil” (Hansen, 1995:153). This deep hatred is upsetting to Père Marriott and the

reader alike. Such malice is not expected in such a place of devotion. However, one has to keep

in mind that many of these women are unenlightened and unsophisticated and the inexplicable is

in many cases seen as the work of the Devil. Mariëtte, as the daughter of a scientist, could have

had some legerdemain here. The many different voices may very well confuse the reader and that

is perhaps the motive.

It is important to look at the time in which the novel is set and the accompanying ideas regarding

science and religion. Sofie Lachapelle (2004:87) in an article entitled, “Between miracle and

sickness: Louise Lateau and the experience of stigmata and ecstasy”, maintains that the said

experiences occurred when the medical establishment was more and more placing itself into an

intellectual sphere previously dominated by the Catholic Church. The Church welcomed the

interest by medical science and physicians were interested in the physiological aspects embedded

in the supernatural. Lachapelle (2004:88) concurs that “the rising popularity of scientific

explanations stimulated both the Church‟s openness toward scientific collaboration and the

medical establishment‟s need to prove the superiority of the scientific method in all spheres of

human activity, including matters of faith”. To my mind, there are more similarities between Louise

Lateau and Mariëtte than between Therese of Lisieux and Mariëtte. Mother Saint-Raphaël also

mentions that Liseaux was famous for her bleeding and ecstasies. Ironic is the fact that Lateau

was subjected to rigorous scrutiny by science and the Church and she never aspired to sainthood,

although she was given the title of Servant of God in 1991. The same courtesy is not granted to

Mariëtte though. Glenn Dallaire (2009) mentions the words of Pope Leo xii in a statement on April

23, 1873: “The Bois D‟ Haine [Lateau‟s place of birth] event is an extraordinary one. You can

affirm, on my behalf, that medical science will never be able to explain such a fact.”

A very important distinction is that neither science nor religion gains the upper hand in the end.

The outcome remains undecided, even though Mariëtte is banished from the convent. Consensus

101

is reached that it is in the best interest that the postulant be dismissed as there is no concrete

evidence to prove her claims. Lyotard (1984:24) agrees that not “every consensus is a sign of

truth, but it is presumed that the truth of a statement necessarily draws a consensus”. Science

also needs to legitimate itself and it is clear that it is not possible here.

Keeping Faith

Both Keeping Faith and Mariëtte in ecstasy include camps of believers in the masses following and

sometimes stalking the two “saints”, although this fact is more pronounced in the latter. Hume

called them “the gazing populace who receive greedily, without examination, whatever soothes

superstition, and promotes wonder” (cited in Tate, 2008:78). The two novels do, however, differ as

far as the other opposing camps are concerned. The dissent is mostly within the convent in the

former and more diverse and on a secular level in the latter. The array includes the Catholic

Church, the Jewish Rabbis, the Mother God Society, psychiatrists, legal representatives and a tele-

atheist.

Tate (2008:69) sees Picoult as using the domestic trauma in this novel to pose larger questions of

“religious identity and the possibility of faith in a sceptical era”. Faith White starts having visions of

an imaginary friend immediately after her parents‟ separation. Her mother is the first to be

confronted with her daughter‟s utterly unbelievable claim. Faith has no religious foundation and is

not even Catholic. She is thus not a very likely candidate. Mariah White calls in the help of Dr

Keller to examine Faith and she duly informs Mariah that her daughter is seeing God. Mariah is

sceptical, but never exclusive about the possibility of it being true or false: “And I‟m not saying you

made her up, Faith. I‟m not. It‟s just that I was so sad once that my mind made me believe

something was true – that‟s all I‟m saying” (Picoult, 2008:59). Dr Keller„s first diagnosis is that

Faith “is having psychotic hallucinations about God” (Picoult, 2008:65). Mariah finds this

explanation preferable to the possibility that she is in fact seeing God. For many in contemporary

society, it is better to put a name to a “disease” than wondering about inexplicable, mystical

experiences. Mariah‟s words later on remind of the words of Père Marriott “I don‟t believe it‟s

possible, I do believe it happened” when she says: “I don‟t know what Faith‟s seeing, I don‟t know

why she‟s seeing it – but I do believe that she‟s telling the truth” (Picoult, 2008:126). Faith‟s

grandmother Millie Epstein is completely sceptical and outraged about Mariah‟s suggestion that

they see a priest: “„You aren‟t taking her to a priest.‟ „Why not? They‟re the ones who have

experience with apparitions.‟ „They‟ll want proof. A statue crying tears or some paraplegic getting

up and walking‟” (Picoult, 2008:67). These examples show what a hindrance these hoaxes have

been to belief in the miraculous. Millie is aware of this postmodern yearning for proof, just as the

Catholic clergy want proof from Mariëtte in order to believe that she is indeed a stigmatic showing

102

the wounds of Christ. Evidence equals belief, and the notion of a leap of faith, or as Kierkegaard

called it a leap to faith, is not an option.

When Mariah insists, Millie refers her to a Rabbi as Faith is half Jewish. This is the first of many

clergymen who gets involved in Faith‟s life – both Jewish and Christian. Rabbi Weissman calls

Rabbi Solomon after a couple, who was having marital problems, reconciled after Faith‟s visit to

the synagogue. Gandolfo (2007:142) maintains that Rabbi Solomon, like Sister Saint-Raphaël,

“represents those who would limit God, who would insist that God meet their expectations, and

who cannot credit any expression of spirituality without religious observance”. He has set ideas

about how the Deity should behave and because He does not adhere to these expectations, Faith

cannot be seeing him: “I don‟t see God telling her that the Israelites are going to cream the PLO. I

don‟t see God telling her to keep kosher […] And I have a hard time believing that if God did

choose to manifest Himself in human form to a Jew, He would choose one who hadn‟t followed a

code of Jewish living” (Picoult, 2008:315). As mentioned before, the strongest dissent comes from

those involved in institutionalized religion and specifically from the Catholic hierarchy. Father

Rourke from St John‟s Seminary in Boston is outraged at Faith‟s claims that God is female: “Faith

rolls her eyes. „God‟s a mother.‟ „I beg your pardon?‟ „A lady. God‟s a lady.‟ Rourke‟s face

reddens. A female God? Absolutely not” (Picoult, 2008:154). Sister Saint-Raphaël is guilty of the

same excessive pride when she says: “I have been troubled by God‟s motives for this […] I see no

possible reasons for it” (Hansen, 1995:160). These characters represent those who fail to see that

God works in mysterious ways, ways that are incomprehensible to humans. Another sceptic is

Father Rampini whose “responsibility is to find holes in each proposed case of sainthood. He

examines every action and writing and word spoken by the allegedly virtuous person in an effort to

find one slip, one swear, one lapse from the faith that might prevent canonization” (Picoult,

2008:223). It seems that his aim is to disprove rather than prove: “If Faith White is seeing God,

there‟s no way He would appear in the form of a woman. Either an apparition is Jesus Christ or it

is not […] I‟m more likely to consider the visions satanic than divine” (Picoult, 2008:233). To say

that Jesus is a woman contradicts what the Church doctrines say and therefore cannot be true.

Through the ages the Catholic Church examined each alleged miracle meticulously because there

were many hoaxes.

Nickell (1993:133) reports that “to Calvin and Luther the age of faith healings ended with the death

of the apostles and that view has prevailed in churches associated with those reformers”. He also

says that faith healing is still practised in the Catholic and Orthodox faiths and there is some revival

among certain charismatic protestant denominations. Interesting is the observation Rev. Smith

(cited in Nickell, 1993:219) makes that as far as stigmata are concerned, the non-Christian

religions (Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed etc.) do not report such cases because their founders

103

did not die violent deaths. The implication is that only Christians experience stigmata because

Christ died a violent death on the cross.

A foil to Father Rampini is Father Joseph MacReady from the Catholic Church. He seems to be

more enlightened in his views and promotes a private spirituality rather than a strict adherence to

doctrine and dogma. Thus his thoughts are in line with current postmodern trends and Vattimo‟s

notions that religion can no longer rely on any strong doctrine. He explains to Mariah: “I‟ve never

believed that spirit comes from religion. It comes from deep inside each of us; it draws people to

us” (Picoult, 2008:139). Gandolfo (2007:141) says that Father MacReady argues for an “indwelling

God”. He touches on plurality and what Vattimo sees as caritas (charity) when he argues that:

“Maybe this is God‟s idea of a winning ticket – a way to get many different personalities to worship

him at once. To worship Him at all” (Picoult, 2008:139).

Father MacReady, in a conversation with Kenzie van der Hoven, the court appointed guardian ad

litem reveals his views that we don‟t need proof to have faith: „“[…] have you ever seen the sun set

in Nepal?‟ „No, I haven‟t.‟ Neither have I,‟ Father MacReady admits.‟ But that doesn‟t mean it

doesn‟t happen‟” (Picoult, 2008:317). He does not see religion in terms of denominations, but

advocates tolerance within the larger concept of spirituality. Picoult introduces forms of conversion

narratives in more than one character. Father Rampini changes his views later on and submits two

completely contradictory reports on his findings regarding Faith to Bishop Andrews. He requests

that the one endorsing Faith‟s claims be used, but Bishop Andrews files them both in case “the tide

turns and he needs it” (Picoult, 2008:296). Doubt is the motivation behind his action and the

Church should be ready for “either contingency”. The fact that Bishop Andrews keeps two reports,

one endorsing Faith White‟s claims, and one refuting her claims, emphasizes this uncertainty, this

inability to report with conviction that the supernatural is at work here. One is also reminded of the

inability of science to provide absolute certainty of its claims that everything can be proved

scientifically.

Ian Fletcher is a tele-atheist and the owner of Pagan Productions. The name of his company is

tritely obvious in pointing to his heathen stance. His aim is to expose and discredit those who

claim to be miracle workers. He is educated and has a PhD in Theology from Harvard, which is

ironic seen in the light of his anti-religious fervour. Tate (2008:79) says that Picoult has “created a

compellingly unholy hybrid: he preaches with a revivalist charisma, offering his congregation not

eternal salvation but a Richard Dawkins-style empirical unbelief schooled in Humean scepticism”.

Fletcher gives his explanation about God when he says: “People believe in God because they

don‟t have any other explanation for things that happen” (Picoult, 2008:31). One such supposedly

miraculous event that he discusses on TV is about William and Bootsie McKinnon who claim that

on the morning of August twentieth, after a severe thunderstorm, Jesus appeared to them in the

104

split branch of a Macintosh tree. He calls Professor Irwin Nigel to explain that the face that they

have seen is “actually just a conglomeration of deposits in the tree‟s hardwood” (Picoult, 2008:49).

Fletcher reminds of Nietzsche‟s “everything is interpretation” with his words: “Perception is a very

powerful thing” (Picoult, 2008:50). Ironically, the words “The Search for truth” are painted on his

Winnebago. These words are definitely for the edification of those who believe in miracles and

finding the truth and definitively not applicable to him, as there is no truth for Ian Fletcher. Fletcher

challenges readers with the question of what else they believe in with blind faith and maintains that

God is a myth. It is said in the novel that the more outspoken he became, the more popular he

became and the more people were intrigued with him. Tate (2008:79) argues that his charisma

and eloquence are reminders of David Johnson‟s belief that Hume‟s success with his argument

against miracles is because of his oratory ability: “The mostly willing hearers who have been

swayed by Hume on this matter have been held captive by nothing more than Hume‟s great

eloquence.” Picoult touches on the critique against the tele-atheists and maybe even the

sensationalist reality TV. Religion and the supernatural are often exploited for the sake of

sensation.

Fletcher‟s strongest argument against God is the existence of evil in the world – an argument most

often used by atheists: “It‟s the thought that any parent – including God – would make his child

suffer intentionally […] I can‟t worship someone who lets that happen” (Picoult, 2008:127). As with

so many non-believers, doubt starts creeping in to disturb their absolute certainties. Ian‟s disbelief

in God is not just based on reason, but partly has to do with his childhood experiences. Picoult,

once again, brings in the conversion narrative with the character of Fletcher. This is, however, not

a full conversion, but he does move from absolutism to at least a degree of accommodating the

possibility of the miraculous. Tate (2008:87) concurs that this is reflection “that reason itself has

boundaries and limits”. Fletcher addresses a press conference after the court case to determine

custody of Faith. He refuses to say what happened in Kansas City when he had a normal

conversation with his autistic brother after Faith‟s intervention. He does, however, say that

religious belief is a private affair. He also touches on Vattimo‟s belief in tolerance when he says:

“We don‟t have to accept each other‟s beliefs […] but we do have to accept each other‟s right to

believe them” (Picoult, 2008:462).

Picoult effectively shows the inability of science to explain certain miraculous phenomena through

the findings of the medical staff who examine Faith. Dr Blumberg is unable to explain the cause of

the wounds on Faith‟s hands. He tells Mariah: “It‟s an inexplicable thing” (Picoult, 2008:131).

Being a man of science, he is reluctant and maybe embarrassed to admit the possibility of

stigmata. Dr Herbert, a psychiatrist, says that such phenomena “are beyond the range of both

logic and science” (Picoult, 2008:141). The idea that science must triumph over religion is still

105

prevalent. Dr Blumberg is forced to accept that science is limited in its explanations and as

Lyotard contends, also subject to legitimation in order to be a true science. He concurs that

“scientific knowledge does not represent the totality of knowledge; it has always existed in addition

to, and in competition and conflict with, another kind of knowledge, which I will call narrative”

(Lyotard, 1984:7). Faith‟s story is not ultimately about the victory of science over religion. The

outcome remains open-ended and it is up to the reader to decide what evidence would be enough

to convince a believer of the hand of God in this, and what evidence would convince an unbeliever

that the hand of God is not evident here.

5.4 The introduction of supernatural phenomena – visions, faith healing and stigmata

Contemporary society does not easily tolerate the appearance of the transcendent in the world

today. Literary critic Dennis Taylor voices the challenges of theological implications in a novel:

“The subject of religious experience, and of course, religion itself, is a profoundly divisive and

disturbing subject, and for that reason famously avoided in polite conversation” (cited in Wendorf,

2004:37). The divisive nature of the different religious views in the two novels received some

attention and the chapter will endeavour to show how these phenomena are introduced in both

novels without them being disturbing.

Visions are present in both novels, but they receive scant attention. The discussion below

presents the visions in the order in which they appear in the novels. There seems to be an

escalation in the intensity of the phenomena as they appear throughout the novels, and in both

novels they ultimately culminate in the appearance of stigmata. The lack of detail regarding the

visions could be a technique to emphasize their fleeting quality. Picoult describes Faith‟s vision as:

“She‟s never seen anything like it. It seems so soft you might fall into it and never find your way

out” (Picoult, 2008:38). There is simultaneously a suggestion of an otherworldly and infinite quality

present in the description, but the language remains flat. No gender is at first attached to the

vision. Any additional information about this vision is gathered through conversations with Faith.

Father Rampini elicits the following description: “She wears the same thing over and over. It‟s a

brown skirt and top, but it‟s all together in one piece, and it looks like the things people from the

olden times wear on TV.” (Picoult, 2008:255-256). There are no further descriptions and this might

be intentional seen in the light of the difficulty surrounding such an enterprise. As mentioned in the

thesis statement, fiction cannot prove the reality of supernatural phenomena, although a space is

created for these to feature. An explicit confrontation could lead to a mistrust and suspicion of the

supernatural. Humankind‟s insistence on proof, mentioned earlier on, is another stumbling block to

belief. This vagueness is also a way of keeping the vision a mystery and indefinable. More

information appears in fragments and there is never a full picture.

106

It is uncertain whether Mariëtte sees anything when she hears Christ‟s voice. The first introduction

is when she tells Père Marriott that she has had an experience: “Jesus spoke to me” (Hansen,

1995:40). He is not surprised, as he has heard this from many young nuns before. He warns her

though to be wary of Satan‟s temptations: “When you see Christ or hear Him, you must be

mistrusting and wary, for Christ is a word that does not give voice to the ear but goes directly into

the mind” (Hansen, 1995:41). Suspicion seems to be the first reaction of most characters.

Mariëtte herself is baffled about these strange experiences and in a letter to Marriott goes so far as

to tell him not to believe anything she says. She does not regard herself as worthy of such

attention: “I have seen and heard impossible things, and whenever before has Christ appeared to

souls as sinful as mine?” (Hansen, 1995:58). The visions are not described and it is up to the

reader to form an image in his or her mind. More detail is given to the environment in which these

visions and voices appear than the actual image. These phenomena are introduced in mundane

situations as if they are natural manifestations: “Her wet blue eyes are overawed as she stares

ahead at a wall and she seems to be listening to something just above her, as a girl might listen to

the cooing of pigeons. Shutting her eyes, she talks voicelessly, with great passion, and opens her

hands as priests do at the par vobiscum. And then she swoons as though she‟s lost herself and

has become only her clothes” (Hansen, 1995:62). These manifestations seem more credible

because they seem to be part of the natural environment.

Faith healing appears only in Keeping Faith and once again it appears so naturally without any

theatrical or spectacular fanfare that it is rendered credible. Faith is able to accomplish miraculous

cures. The first is when she brings her grandmother back from the dead. This as such is a

preposterous feat, but the reader never feels as if he or she is in the presence of a charlatan. If

one reads the specific extract without having knowledge of the context, one might think it is a

simple act of love: “But her gaze [Mariah‟s] never wavers from Faith – not when Faith lifts herself

up on her elbows, not when Faith places her hands on either side of Millie‟s face and kisses her full

on the mouth, not when Millie‟s arms rise stiff and slow and cling to her granddaughter for dear life”

(Picoult, 2008:90). The next incident is when she ostensibly heals a baby who has Aids. This

description is as natural as the previous: “Faith carefully lifts the baby and presses her lips against

the sore on his forehead. She walks to the ash tree and gives the infant to his sobbing mother”

(Picoult, 2008:105). Picoult provides more detail regarding these incidents by using the media to

discuss them. Petra Saganoff, an anchorwoman, talks to the mother afterwards and the reader is

given all the details. A different source reveals the details of the healing and thus makes them

more believable. One can call these moments anti-epiphany moments, moments that Rushdie

sees as the miraculous existing in the mundane.

107

The supernatural seems to reach its highest point in both novels with the manifestation of stigmata.

It is perhaps here that the differences between the two novels are most pronounced. Whereas

Picoult introduces the stigmata in the same unspectacular way as the previous phenomena,

Hansen uses sensuous language and decorative metaphors to introduce them.

The word Stigmata comes from the Greek word στίγμα which could be translated as spot, brand,

disgrace etc. It dates back to 1580-90 and in ancient Greece meant physical marks inflicted by

sharp instruments or fire on those considered as outsiders, slaves, criminals or lechers. The plural

stigmata refer to the bodily marks that were evident on the body of Christ during the Crucifixion.

These wounds appear in the palms of the hands, the feet, the side and the forehead. St Francis of

Assisi was the first recorded stigmatic in history. He exhibited the wounds of Christ in 1224 and his

successor Brother Leo gave this account after the death of St Francis:

I announce to you great joy, even a new miracle. From the beginning of ages there has not been heard so great a wonder, save only in the Son of God […] For, a long while before his death, our Father and Brother [Francis] appeared crucified, bearing in his body the five wounds which are verily the stigmata of the Christ. For his hands and feet had piercings made by nails fixed in from above and below, which laid open the scars and had the black appearance of nails; while his side appeared to have been lanced, and blood often trickled therefrom (Nickell, 1993:219).

Not all stigmatics necessarily exhibit all the wounds. There are certain criteria that seem to be

common for most stigmatics. They are usually female, from a poor background, with a reserved

and humble behaviour, an extreme devotion to Christ and an obsession with Christ‟s passion

(Lachapelle, 2004:80). Many also show signs of inedia, which is present only in Mariëtte in

ecstasy. Inedia accompanies stigmata and is a condition where the stigmatic suspends the taking

in of any food and sometimes water and generally believes that the daily communion is enough to

sustain him or her.

Early on in the novel Mariëtte in ecstasy reference is made to Dame Julian of Norwich when Sister

Saint-Michel reads from the Lectio Divina chapter two the Revelations of Divine Love. Hansen

subtly introduces the reader to the possibility of stigmata: “Some time earlier she had asked three

gifts from God: one, to understand his passion; two, to suffer physically while still a young woman

of thirty; and, finally, to have as God‟s gift three wounds” (Hansen, 1995:25). The reader makes a

mental connection between Mariëtte and Dame Julian, and the reader seems to be an implied

reader –– one who has knowledge of Dame Julian. Mariëtte writes to Père Marriott that Christ has

promised that she will suffer great pain, but also that no one will believe her. The stigmata are

preceded by a number of trances and fainting spells. While scrubbing the kitchen floor with Sister

Zèlie, Mariëtte suddenly shuts her eyes, kneels upright on her fingertips and prays, only to resume

her work a few minutes later. There is a gradual build-up to the first appearance of the stigmata on

108

Christmas Day after the death of the prioress. Mariëtte feels a sudden sharp pain in her hands one

day when she‟s working in the priest‟s sacristy after Terce. Sister Catherine enquires after the pain

and she answers: “What a great favor Christ shall be giving me!” (Hansen, 1995:73). Her religious

fervour intensifies the closer she gets to receiving the wounds. The description of the sacristy is so

vivid and the reader feels the sacred atmosphere among the religious paraphernalia: “[…] washing a

great wall of leaded window glass with vinegar as Sister Catherine polishes a golden ciborium and

paten and pyx and Père Marriott‟s own chalice, with its agates and emeralds and sapphires”

(Hansen, 1995:73). Hansen shows a reverence for language and his descriptions involve the

reader actively in what is portrayed. Pico Iyer (1993:495) in a review entitled “Sacred and profane”

comments on the suitability of the environment of the cloistered confines of the convent as

“famously fertile grounds for loose imaginations” and maintains that it is not difficult to “evoke a

sense of ardor and passion play amidst candlelit cloisters, young girls in white and a world of

whispers”. Hansen uses the metaphor of sacred writing to introduce the stigmata. This is in line

with the ancient meaning of stigmata as a mark or tattoo on the human body, thus signifying sin.

Arnell (2007:198) maintains that “if the stigmata are metaphorically linked to writing, and if Hansen

views writing as potentially sacramental, then it follows that the stigmata have a sacramental

quality, serving as a vehicle for God to speak to and through the human body. Another pang of

pain in the hands serves as indicator that the postulant will be granted the gifts of Christ: “And then

she flinches and looks down at her hands. She tries to rub the hot sting from one palm with her

thumb but the hurt persists like hate inked on a page” (Hansen, 1995:99). Mariëtte‟s reaction

seems ambiguous and the word hate is definitively linked to the immense pain, but just one line

later she is said to be “hoarding” the pain. Even though the pain is excruciating, she still wants to

accumulate and store it. This hoarding is put into action by acts of mortification. The metaphor of

writing is continued in the tangled wire that is seen as a signature that ingrains itself into her skin

underneath her breasts. She also sinks her hands into hot water until she scalds her palms and

offers as explanation the fact that she just wanted to hurt. Her desire to feel pain and to experience

Christ‟s own suffering becomes almost like an obsession. The stigmata appear eventually and

significantly on Christmas Day: “Blood scribbles down her wrists and ankles and scrawls like

handwriting on the floor” (Hansen, 1995:107). This simile describes the trickling of the blood as ink

would flow on paper. Whereas the previous simile was static in nature, the blood is flowing here as

a sign of her unstoppable passion or abandon. Mariëtte is ecstatic when she tells Père Marriott:

“Oh, look at what Jesus has done to me!” (Hansen, 1995:112).

Vattimo‟s concept of kenosis or Christ‟s self-emptying is explicit in the novel. In a conversation with

Father Marriott, when asked about the appearance of the stigmata on Christmas Day, she says:

“We celebrate the Word being made incarnate then” (Hansen, 1995:126). Wendorf (2004:51)

observes that she sees her experience as the conviction that “the divine has taken on flesh and

blood in Jesus”. Mariëtte feels that the wounds are “His”, “embodied by me, but not mine”

109

(Hansen, 1995:115). She is a vehicle for sharing the suffering of Christ and this provides her with

immense joy. Just like Christ lowered Himself and became a servant, Mariëtte empties herself and

becomes God‟s servant. A common characteristic of stigmatics is the fact that they experience a

sort of out-of-body experience during their ecstasies. Mariëtte relates such an experience: “In

prayer I float out of myself. I seek God with a great yearning, like an orphan child pursuing her true

mother. I have lost my body; I don‟t know where I am or even if I am now human or spirit” (Hansen,

1995:128). Jasper in an article entitled “The Erotic and the Mystical in Postmodernity” touches on

the theios eros or passionate love for God. He quotes the words of Dame Julian in her second

revelation: “So I saw him and sought him: I had him and wanted him” (Jasper, 2005:72). There is

a similar eroticism present in Mariëtte in ecstasy and the first link with this could be the cover of the

novel. Hansen suggested that the publishers base it on the statue of St Theresa of Avila. Jasper

comments on St Theresa‟s parted lips and closed eyes and the fact that many interpret Bernini‟s

statue as an “either/or, either fleshy or spiritual, and finally conclude that her ecstasy is indeed a

physical orgasm with the angel who stands over her debased to a smirking Cupid” (Jasper,

1995:74). Mariëtte is dismissed as a result of her ecstasies and stigmata, as her desire cannot be

accepted as sacred and secular at the same time. This relates to the Church as institution‟s

either/or position instead of a more accommodating both/and. Hansen paints an ambiguous

picture of Mariëtte throughout the novel and this strengthens this notion of the theios eros even

more. The reader might be confused whether this experience is religious ecstasy or sexual

rapture. Elizabeth Beverly (1992:27) asks the challenging question of how one can draw a clear

division between agape and eros when the body is an instrument of devotion. Mariëtte‟s body is

indeed an instrument of devotion as she passionately longs to experience the wounds of Christ.

Hansen provides an image of a sensuous, erotic young woman that is at odds with the picture of

the pious, sombre postulant in her starched habit. The reader might feel the same binary feelings

when trying to determine whether she is genuine or just a fake. At the beginning of the novel,

Mariëtte is getting ready to join the Sisters of the Crucifixion in her upstairs bedroom:

She then stands and unties the strings at her neck so that the pink satin seeps onto a green Chinese carpet that is as plush as grass. And she is held inside an upright floor mirror, pretty and naked and seventeen. She skeins her chocolate-brown hair. She pouts her mouth. She esteems her full breasts as she has seen men esteem them. She haunts her milk-white skin with her hands (Hansen, 1995:9).

The verbs “skeins‟, “pouts”, “esteems” and “haunts” do not fit the description of a reserved, chaste

postulant but rather a voluptuous, sexual being. The words: “Even this I give You” (Hansen, 1995)

point to her enormous sacrifice, her giving up worldly indulgence in order to serve God. Every

word is charged with sensuousness and suggestion. The long hair of a woman is a traditional

symbol of sensuality and this image is recurrent in the novel. Unlike the other novices, she is

110

allowed to keep her hair long until she is accepted as a novice. Physically she is different in that

she is beautiful. This sensuousness is emphasized by Hansen when Mariëtte takes on the role of

the bride in the nuns‟ dramatic enactment of the Song of Songs. The frankly erotic interpretation of

the poetry is evident here. Mariëtte‟s physical beauty is depicted in the lines: “Mariëtte is

glamorously there, her great dark mane of hair in massacre like the siren pictures of Sheba. She‟s

taken her sandals off and shockingly dressed her soft nakedness in a string necklace of white

buttons that are meant to seem pearls and red taffeta robe that is like a bloodstain on linen”

(Hansen, 1995:83). Arnell (2007:192) reflects that this simile emphasizes her wild and primal

quality and the red colour of the robe identifies her as one that transgresses by taking on this sinful

role. Sister Philomène confirms this sinfulness of enacting something so erotic: “We shouldn‟t be

doing this” (Hansen, 1995:83). One is reminded that eroticism is not to be reconciled with the

sacred. Sister Philomène feels guilty and she has this inherent belief that anything that is erotic

must be sinful. The relationship between Christ and His church is seen as symbolic of a

relationship between a husband and wife. Mariëtte utters the words of the Song of Solomon when

she says: “Let my Beloved come into his garden, let him taste its precious fruit” (Hansen, 1995:83).

She is sinful in the sense that her beauty is tempting.

Mariëtte‟s trances and ecstasies become more frequent and result in her being on the receiving

end of Mother Saint-Raphaël‟s wrath. During one of her ecstasies, Sister Philomène asks her to

relate what she sees. She tells in detail of her encounter with Jesus: “He holds my hand in his and

we two walk down the hallway to his house inside ours […] We are alone. We touch each other, but

he withdraws. „You are unclean,‟ he says, and I am ashamed because I see that it‟s true. Every

sin I have committed is written in ink on my skin” (Hansen, 1995:167). The stigmata are signs of

her sins, as well as gifts from Christ. Mother Raphaël slaps her as she is unable to handle such

fervour. Another ecstasy results in Mother Raphaël placing a fork violently against her left breast in

order to wake her. She seems jealous of the support Mariëtte receives from the other nuns after

they have viewed the stigmata themselves. She is aware of her reactions being sinful because she

asks for God‟s forgiveness. Mother Raphaël is uncomfortable with such wildness and disruption

and ultimately chooses to call in science to refute the supernatural. This decision does not do

justice to Mariëtte‟s episodes with Christ, but “stills the tumult of conflicting voices threatening life in

the convent” (Wendorf, 2004:55). Balance has to be maintained between a very structured

institution and a young woman claiming divine possession.

Hansen uses colours to create an image of wildness in contrast to the starkness of the convent:

“Sister Saint-Denis has undone Mariëtte‟s dark brown hair so that it is troublingly disordered

against the white pillowcase, but her skin is as radiant and pink with health” (Hansen, 1995:113).

At another time, Hansen writes: “Mariëtte is still in her nightgown and her chocolate-brown hair is

wild as she gets a black habit from her great pine armoire” (Hansen, 1995:101). The colours black

111

and white are suggestive of rigidity, thus indicative of the strictures and harsh discipline of the

convent. Mariëtte, in contrast, conveys warmth through the colours chocolate-brown, pink and the

recurrent mention of red signifying blood. She is in the infirmary after another fainting spell and is

in a trance. Sister Aimée is asked to give a scientific description of the stigmata and she calls them

hideous. What mystifies medical personnel in both novels is the apparent miraculous healing of

the stigmata without leaving any reddening or inflammation around the affected area. Sister Aimée

“touches the hardening scab where only hours ago the nail hole was […] until she‟s sure she‟s seen

the healing of weeks in just one day” (Hansen, 1995:123). Dr Blumberg explains Faith‟s wounds:

“showed these perfectly round wounds, with perfectly round little gaps in the tissue and bones […]

but no actual trauma” (Picoult, 2008:131). Both Faith and Mariëtte are reluctant to show their

wounds to the world and this desire to keep them hidden can be indicative of them being authentic.

Father Rampini thinks: “the visionary who chatters away about what she‟s seen is usually lying.

Genuine seers, in fact, often have to be coerced into discussing their visions” (Picoult, 2008:255).

This reluctance to speak about and display their wounds is characteristic of most stigmatics. Apart

from the few similarities surrounding the stigmata, their introduction into the respective novels

differs greatly. Hansen beautifies them, whereas Picoult introduces them without any decorum. In

Keeping Faith, the first mention is when Ian Fletcher follows Faith into the woods one night and she

faints. He then discovers blood on his hands: “Then he goes to wipe off his hands on his raincoat

and realizes it‟s smeared with blood” (Picoult, 2008:122). Father MacReady informs Mariah that

the stigmata are gifts to which she replies: “Some gift. To leave you in constant pain, and make

you a freak show” (Picoult, 2008:138). Her view is that of most contemporary people when

confronted with the miraculous or something out of the ordinary. What is inexplicable is linked to

insanity. Faith and Mariëtte are two totally different vehicles for the manifestation of stigmata.

Faith is oblivious to religion and does not have any desire to share Christ‟s wounds. She does not

in fact say very much regarding this, as mentioned in the novel. Picoult creates a very unusual

stigmatic in Faith and in effect revitalizes an ancient manifestation. In a televised interview with

clergy from different denominations, Larry King asks Rabbi Solomon: “How come a Jewish girl

would develop the wounds of a savior she doesn‟t believe in?” (Picoult, 2008:203). This is perhaps

to show how life is full of surprises and the reader should be prepared to be confronted by the

unexpected. Mariëtte, on the other hand, is ardent to have Christ‟s gifts and welcomes the

wounds. She meets most of the common criteria for stigmatics. It is necessary to make the

observation that neither of these visionaries are peculiar characters and both novelists succeed in

creating characters that are different, though acceptable to society. Sara Maitland (2000:77)

observes that “religious characters are usually comic, villainous or mad, and their religious

peculiarities consume their whole presence in the novel”. This is generally true, but Picoult and

Hansen do the opposite and create “normal” characters as receptors of the miraculous.

112

Both novels are open-ended and the reader is left to decide what to make of the characters‟ claims.

Mariëtte is dismissed from the convent, but she remains passionate in her devotion to God. God

has not abandoned her now that she is living in her father‟s house again. She still experiences the

pain of the stigmata and still offers herself completely to God. Hansen repeats earlier lines: “She

stands before an upright floor mirror at forty and skeins hair that is half gray. She pouts her mouth.

She esteems her full breasts as she has seen men esteem them. She haunts her milk-white skin

with her hands. Even this I have given you” (Hansen, 1995:178). These lines serve a unifying

purpose in the novel and Mariëtte has come full circle. She is back where she was and this fact

has not changed her religious outlook. She is still Christ‟s bride. The suggestion here is that the

convent is not necessary in order to experience God. He is also accessible in the mundane,

everyday routines of our lives. She writes: “Even now I look out at a cat huddled down in the

adder‟s fern, at a fresh wind nagging the sheets on the line, at hills like a green sea in the east and

just beyond them the priory, and the magnificent puzzle is, for a moment, solved, and God is there

before me in the being of all that is not him” (Hansen, 1995:179). She finds God in nature –– in the

small miracles of everyday life. Life and its mysteries remains a “puzzle” to Mariëtte, and if she

looks at God‟s creation, this “puzzle” is momentarily solved in that she realises a supernatural

being must have made these. Vattimo sees God as the trace “that makes itself felt in our

language” (Vattimo, 1999:15). Although God is not visible, we see Him in the traces around us, we

see Him in nature and the everyday routines of our lives. There is still a longing to be part of the

convent, but she expresses no bitterness towards it. She also says that whenever she becomes

sad and thinks that the years since age seventeen have been suspended, Christ reminds her of His

love for her. He still sends her roses, which is a metaphor for the stigmata. God still speaks to her,

but instead of completely revealing himself, He whispers “Surprise me” (Hansen, 1995:179).

Mariëtte reaffirms the fact that we can know only partly and that the unpresentable should be

accommodated –– that something that the mind finds difficult to contain. Elizabeth McDonough

(1992:67) observes that “eventually God‟s handiwork becomes manifest in how one deals openly

and creatively with the dreadfully mundane elements of self and others in the everyday

circumstances of our mostly uneventful and apparently mediocre lives”.

The reader is left with many questions at the end of the novel: Are these wounds really the wounds

of Christ or self-inflicted gashes? Is Mariëtte delusional or does she in fact hear the voice of God?

Is she a charlatan or is she a saint? Hansen does not provide the answers. The implied reader

should, according to Iser, weigh the different perspectives, join them together at the vantage point

and find the place of convergence. The place of convergence is a sort of reconciliation between

belief and unbelief in that there is no proof, no certainty. The function of the uncertainty is to focus

the reader‟s attention on the multiple ways of interpretation, and the importance of considering

alternative viewpoints, even if one does not agree with them.

113

Keeping Faith ends in a court drama in which Judge Rothbottom has to decide whether Mariah

White is guilty of harming her own child. Tate (2008:69) concurs that the “court becomes an

exemplary secular space that is haunted by the spectre of the sacred at the level of form and

content: its hierarchical structure is quasi-religious with the judge a secular equivalent to God”.

Rothbottom, however, makes it clear that the jurisdiction of the court does not include making

decisions about a person‟s faith, thus touching on the notion of separation between Church and

state. He states: “But the job of this court isn‟t to ask whether Faith‟s visions and hand wounds are

of divine origin. We shouldn‟t ask if she‟s Jewish or Christian or Muslim, if she‟s the Messiah or the

Antichrist” (Picoult, 2008:460). By placing such emphasis on testimony throughout the trial, Picoult

echoes David Hume‟s argument against miracles: a miracle is a “violation of the laws of nature.”

Proof is not found to validate any truth. There are only multiple interpretations and no single grand

narrative. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the Faith White case remains open.

Cardinal Sciorro places Faith‟s file in an active pile.

The novel ends on a rather ambiguous note. After the trial and domestic conflict, Mariah is granted

custody of Faith, with generous visitation rights for Colin White. The conflict seems to be resolved

on a secular level. The omnipresent narrator writes that Faith is in bed while Fletcher and her

mother are downstairs. She calls God a few times without success. Faith then pretends to be

talking to God for the sake of her mother who is checking on her. She slyly calculates when her

mother will be within hearing distance: “She guesses how long it is before her mother is within

hearing distance of her bedroom” (Picoult, 2008:468). These words seem to refute any possibility

that she ever really talked to God: “Faith continues to talk to no one at all, until she hears her

mother‟s voice again downstairs, until she is certain that nobody is listening” (Picoult, 2008:468).

Many sceptics might argue that everything was a hoax and merely an attempt by a traumatised

child to get attention, or that she invented this “guard” figure in order to have a crutch to lean on (a

typical Freudian interpretation). Tate (2008:82) observes that it could also be seen as a “reminder

of the dominant traditions of prayer in the major world religions, conducted as an act of faith that

persists without the convenient reassurance of a visible embodiment of the divine by one‟s side”.

As with Mariëtte in ecstasy, it is the prerogative of the reader to decide what really happened. It is

not primarily Picoult‟s or Hansen‟s intention to entice the reader to come to a conclusion. They

give a platform to the conflicting voices that are prevalent in postmodern society. Fiction cannot

prove whether miracles do happen or not, but they do provide witness to the appearance of the

supernatural amidst the secular.

114

Chapter 6: Conclusion

6

The postmodern novel shows indebtedness to Christianity or the Bible because the Bible

serves as the novel‟s symbolic origin. If the Bible serves as a kind of Ur-text, then the

subject matter is unlimited when considering the Bible‟s wide subject matter. Although the

contemporary novel remains sceptical towards institutionalized religion, it is nevertheless

preoccupied with religious themes such as providence, sacrifice, sin, guilt and redemption,

as well as inexplicable phenomena such as miracles, faith healing and stigmata. Religious

themes are introduced, reshaped and revitalized, mainly by writers who are not religious in

the sense of adhering to or following traditional religious doctrines. These themes and

phenomena naturally have an effect on the reader and the way such content is perceived.

Both these aspects, namely the religious themes and supernatural phenomena occur in

novels considered to be realistic. This novel form is most able to prove that the miraculous

remains suspect, even for believers.

Without one examining Biblical content in novels, the general pattern of most novels confirm

a sort of fictive kinship with theology in that there is a definite pattern of sin, the fall and

redemption. Michael Edwards (1984:4) refers to this pattern as “Christian cosmology” which

entails “creation, fall and re-creation”. He also contends that our need for story “comes from

the exile from Eden” and this is true whether one actually believes in the metanarrative of

Eden or not (Edwards, 1984:73). If everything were good there would be no need for story.

This stance is reinforced by Flannery O‟ Connor (cited in Ryken, 2002:167), who believes

that drama is embedded in this concept of original sin regardless of the theological

orientation of the writer. Without salvation, or as she calls it “loss of the soul” there is no

story. The fact that we inhabit such an imperfect, fallen world necessitates the telling of

stories and a reaching towards a better world, albeit in most cases just a fictional one. This

identification of a pattern of sin, the fall and redemption in novels does not mean that one

simplifies literature by earnestly searching for glimpses of Christian truths and turning

secular writers, and at that non-religious ones, into Christians. This is by no means the

intention of this dissertation. Paul Fiddes (1991:33) argues that because all fiction has as

content human experience and is concerned with themes that touch on Christian faith; this

human tendency towards self-transcendence is destined to intersect with the theological

notion of the human reaching towards transcendence. He continues to say that one may

compare the writer‟s fiction with its ascribed Christian content to those who do adhere

115

willingly to the Christian tradition as long as one does not simply assume that the secular

writer has made “the jump from one dimension to another” (Fiddes, 1991:33).

There is a conflict in all the novels under discussion between the sacred and the secular,

which as binary poles at first glance seems to be irreconcilable. On closer investigation

there seems to be a definite space of convergence between sacred and secular and a

confirmation of the interdependence of these two binary categories. Kaufmann (2007:608)

refers to the work of Asad, who makes the statement that nothing is essentially, inherently or

exclusively sacred or secular. He includes here people, experience, text, institutions and

historical times. Kaufmann insists that these two categories (sacred and secular) are

dependent on each other for rendering meaning and should therefore always be present

simultaneously. He makes an important statement when commenting on the fact that

meaning only changes when the relationship between the sacred and secular changes due

to the conditions at the time. Thus referring here to contingent matters such as time and

setting (Kaufman, 2007:610). In other words, the relationship between sacred and secular

and how amiable or hostile this relationship is depends on many factors such as the general

beliefs, worldviews and cultural environment of writers and readers. This fact gives

credibility to the theory of interpretive communities of which we are all members and the fact

that religion is seen as social construct. Lourdunathan (2008: 381-384), mentioned in the

introduction, says that the sacred and secular are two sides of the same coin and that it is

impossible to make meaningful statements about the one without considering the other.

This interdependence is apparent in all novels discussed. The fact that sacred content

pervades novels at a time that is considered by many as generally non-religious is proof that

the sacred or religious is an inescapable need for the present and a past which we cannot

negate. The fact that non-religious writers use religious content confirms this longing for the

sacred or an awareness of such a need, if then not an endorsement of such content.

When referring to religious content in the novels concerned, an anti-doctrinal slant is taken,

which is typical of postmodern trends. The emphasis is on spirituality rather than a strict

following of theological dogmatism. Piscine Moliter Patel in Life of Pi summarises this

understanding when he says that: “Religion is more than rite and ritual” (Martel, 2002: 48).

When enduring innumerable hardships on the open sea with a tiger as companion, Piscine

practises the rituals of many denominations, but soon realises that they seem empty and

that a love for or faith in God (whichever Deity) is what is sustainable in the end. He admits:

“They [rituals] brought me comfort, that is certain. But it was hard, oh, it was hard. Faith in

God is an opening up, a letting go, a deep trust, a free act of love” (Martel: 2002: 208).

Picine Moliter Patel experiences a variety of religions and comes to the conclusion that they

116

all have one thing in common – caritas. They all advocate love. A possible avenue for

further exploration might be how writers from different religions incorporate religious themes.

One may also explore different themes as they manifest in different cultures. Gianni Vattimo

pleads for this same love (caritas), which should form the basis of religion and which should

be the guiding force in our relationship with others. He says in Belief (1999:64) “The precept

„Dilige, et quod vis fac‟ (Love, and do what you will), found in the work of Augustine,

expresses clearly the only criterion on the basis of which secularization must be examined.”

Emphasis for Vattimo is on love rather than doctrine and institutionalized religion, a trend

which is, according to him, not necessarily regrettable. He asserts that secularization is a

“positive fact” that implies a more “flexible literalism in the interpretation of dogma and

precepts” and ultimately leads to a “fuller truth” which is the “kenosis or abasement of God”

(Vattimo, 1999:47).

Owen Meany possesses this kind of free spirituality devoid of strict principles of theological

instruction. He sees salvation as an act of love for others when he gives up his life

voluntarily for the Vietnamese children. This selfless act of sacrifice is at the heart of

Christianity and is thus linked to Christ‟s kenosis. John Irving introduces religious themes

through the character of Owen Meany, who has many parallels with Jesus Christ, but who is

not portrayed in a serious light. Owen believes in God‟s providence and ascribes nothing to

sheer coincidence. He is a modern-day Christ-like figure and his steadfast belief in God‟s

plan for him is the driving force in his life. Irving uses parody to deconstruct traditional

themes. This does not devalue the Christian content of the novel or marginalize the

Christian story. Black humour is used instead of highly serious tragedy, but the effect on the

reader remains the same. Wright (1988:125) refers to Flannery O‟Connor‟s argument that

novelists often employ the grotesque or perverse to shock the reader into realizing that “what

they take to be natural is, in fact distorted”. This is confirmed by Sykes (1996: 59) who

comments on the fact that this “Christ pattern” which is all pervasive in the novel in order to

strengthen the supernatural is “refigured in a way that diverts our attention from the Jesus

Christ of Christian scripture”. The reader is lead to re-evaluate the Christian story when

posed to us in a parodic way.

The miraculous is introduced in worldly circumstances and almost seems to be a natural

component of the everyday humdrum of life. Owen Meany is aware of the sacrifice he has

to make in order to redeem the death of Tabitha Wheelwright and he knows the exact date

of his impending death. The final scene does not happen as he expected in a dramatic

environment where he fights as active serviceman, but takes place at an airport – a liminal

space – and all the subtle patterns of the novel culminate. This is perhaps what Salman

117

Rushdie (1991:376) pleaded for when he said that the novel in its realist form should

accommodate the miraculous in order to satisfy the need for the sacred. Thus fiction is an

imitation of everyday life, but there is also this impetus to transcend this same life. Knight

and Woodman (2006:5) argue that “[…] the Biblical sacred is not so much the miraculous in

the sense of the extraordinary wonders as the natural seen in its ultimate depth”. According

to them, realism may be seen as the preferred form for the incorporation of Biblical content

in novels as long as it is conjured up with ample depth and sincerity.

Jodi Picoult‟s Keeping Faith displays this emphasis on sincerity in the portrayal of the

supernatural within a realist form. Faith White is a very unlikely candidate to be endowed

with supernatural abilities. She hails from a family who is not embedded in any Christian

foundation, yet she has knowledge of Biblical content, which in the light of her secular

background is impossible. This fact strengthens her authenticity. Picoult mentioned her

intention of looking at faith rather than religion, thus once again this postmodern concern

with spirituality as opposed to a rigid dogmatism is apparent. Faith claims to have seen God

in a female form; she is capable of faith healing and displays stigmata. Picoult‟s distortion of

the accepted, traditional image of God as male is a re-shaping of this theme in order to make

a powerful statement about interpretation in a postmodern society. She questions this

constant image that prevails of God being an all-powerful male. This image has been

shaped by patriarchy over many millennia despite the fact that God is said to be spirit and no

gender can be attached to spirit. This female God of Faith is indicative of a feminist kenosis

– a rejection of patriarchal concepts. An interesting field to explore may be how writers

revitalize and reshape the narratives of Biblical female characters in contemporary novels.

Two writers doing just that are Margaret Atwood and Jeanette Winterson, respectively in The

handmaid’s tale and Oranges are not the only fruit. They specifically portray the patriarchal

oppression of women, but in such a way that shows how women triumph through their

steadfastness of character.

The introduction of these supernatural phenomena is done craftfully without being offensive

to either believer or non-believer. I have mentioned the pitfalls of incorporating the

miraculous or supernatural in novels earlier on and I want to emphasize this difficulty again.

Flannery O‟Connor (cited in Ryken, 2002:163) calls such an enterprise a “well-nigh

insurmountable one” due to the fact that religious feeling in today‟s society has become “if

not atrophied, at least vaporous and sentimental”. These non-religious writers, with the

exception of Hansen who is a confessed Christian, are sensitive to such a feat and seem

aware of the spiritual climate of the time. Picoult introduces visions and faith healing without

placing too much emphasis on the otherworldly quality and when these occurrences are

118

read out of context they seem like an extension of the natural world. Mariëtte‟s ecstasies

and the visible perception that something is happening to her during these occurrences

remain opaque and are not described in any detail: “Every thought I have is of his infinite

perfection […] I have a vision of him but I cannot see his face or his form, only an infinite

light and goodness […] I hear his voice in an interior way, his words have sweetness and

charm but no sound” (Hansen, 1995:128). This inability to give expression to the

supernatural is what Lyotard calls the “incommensurable” that needs to be tolerated and

acknowledged. That which is unpresentable and not rationally explicable should enjoy the

same preference as that which is scientifically explicable. The introduction of the

supernatural does not occur in a blunt, explicit way, but rather with a sensibility that subtly

speaks to the sub-conscience of the reader.

This dissertation links to Lyotard‟s work and notions concerning the metanarrative and

scientific and narrative knowledge. It may seem at first that his summary of postmodernism

as an “incredulity towards metanarratives” denounces religion all-together. What this in

effect comes down to is that exactly because of the abolishing of grand narratives and the

tolerance of many small narratives, petit recits, religion is once again a valid and legitimate

(meta)narrative. Shah (2012:26) asserts that “Far from being incredulous towards the „grand

narrative‟ of religion, we see [a] revival of religious narrative” and more respect towards not

only religion in a traditional sense, but also such forms as spiritualism, the paranormal and

what generally resorts under “the realm of unreason”. Lyotard‟s equalizing of the two main

forms of knowledge, narrative and scientific respectively, has consequently earned respect

for narrative knowledge, something that lacked during the Enlightenment or Modern period

when the only knowledge acceptable was scientific knowledge. His whole argument is

based on the fact that scientific knowledge also needs to be legitimated in order to be

accepted and for this to happen it relies on narrative knowledge. Narrative knowledge, on

the other hand, does not need verification as “they do what they do” (Lyotard, 1984:23).

These narratives are part of communities and depend for their survival on the simple fact

that they need to be told from one generation to another. These petit recits refer to

Wittgenstein‟s language games or a kind of negotiation that needs to take place between

sender and receiver. Wittgenstein believed that there are many forms of discourse, and

each has its own rules and grammar (Law, 2007:327). Lyotard proposes “paralogy” as

solution to differing metanarratives, which comes down to a disagreement which, to his

mind, is preferable to agreement in a postmodern culture. This is a way to avoid totalizing

forms in which one metanarrative dominates over another.

119

The manifestation of Christ‟s wounds or stigmata is responsible more than any other

supernatural phenomenon in both Keeping Faith and Mariëtte in ecstasy for causing a rift

between science and religion. Stigmata are not a subject that appears readily in many

novels, although it happens more often in literature than in reality. In fact it is a phenomenon

that is unknown to a vast majority of the population. Some pre-knowledge is needed for the

subject to be fully appreciated by the reader. Both novels introduce camps respectively

supporting the supernatural or dismissing its possibility. This rift is not just between sacred

and secular, but within theological circles where no consensus can be reached. Many

clergymen believe that no miracle is possible today and only those mentioned in the Bible

are legitimate. They are suspicious of the inexplicable and have set ideas about the ways in

which God works. Whatever is contrary to doctrine is simply not true. The comparative

study in the previous chapter shows how two very different writers deal with the same

subject matter. Their world views are at variance and their two female characters are greatly

at odds even though they both experience stigmata. Picoult represents those non-religious

writers who nevertheless see the need for giving scope to the sacred and Ron Hansen is a

faithful Catholic who feels the need to employ religious content because of the general

unbelief in society. Stigmata appear in a secular environment in Picoult‟s novel and in a

sacred environment in Hansen‟s novel. This points to the supernatural being random and

not subject to prediction.

Both novels have as extremes belief and disbelief, but in between are those who are in a

liminal space, unable to fully accept the supernatural, but at the same time unable to fully

reject it. Both novels give scope to a plurality of voices, which is imperative in a postmodern

society. Literary critic Terry Eagleton comments that after the totalizing effect of modernity,

we are now in “the laid-back pluralism of the post-modern, that heterogeneous range of life-

styles and language games which has renounced the nostalgic urge to totalize and

legitimate itself” (cited in Middleton & Walsh, 1995:37). Many readers may assume that the

writers‟ theological orientation will at some point be evident in the novels. This, however, is

far from true and at no point can one say with certainty that this or that is the writers‟

standpoint. A very subtle balance between belief and unbelief is maintained and the reader

is left to his or her own devices to construct meaning. Many characters make compelling

cases either for or against belief in the supernatural. An appeal to the allegedly superior

knowledge of science is made in both novels to explain that which is inexplicable. Both

science and religion are perplexed at the phenomena and ultimately no final answers are

provided. Rational thinking or reason has its limits. Lyotard‟s (1984:7) assertion that

“scientific knowledge does not represent the totality of knowledge” is proven when both

science and religion have to admit that there are mysteries which might never be explained.

120

Ron Hansen‟s Mariëtte in ecstasy is an example of a novel that does not have a parochial

focus. He explores the very rare and often avoided subject of the relationship between

spiritual and sexual experience. Terrell calls it a “Prudish evasiveness” (2002:249). Hansen

develops this age-old theme which manifests in “The Song of songs” in the Bible and

revitalizes it here in the very confines of a convent. Iyer (1993:495) comments on the fact

that Hansen is aware of the fact that “eroticism is only as strong as the proscriptions against

it” and he places Mariëtte‟s ecstasies within “the tight corset of the nuns‟ daily routine”. This

sexual rapture is indeed irreconcilable with the sacred to those dwelling within this ascetic,

monotonous and harshly disciplined environment. Mariëtte is told by Mother Celine that:

“We praise God in song here seven times a day. Matins and Lauds, and then for the first,

third, sixth and ninth hours of the day: Prime, Terce, Sext and Nones (Hansen, 1995:32).

Mariëtte has a dream that is saturated with sexual suggestion: “Hands haul her nightgown as

high as her thighs and hoist it underneath her haunches. She prays as her knees are held

wide” (Hansen, 1995:143). It is because of this very blending of sacred and secular that

Mariëtte is dismissed. Her erotic sexuality is seen as a contamination of a sacred institution.

The real reason for her expulsion is of course the inexplicability of her alleged stigmata,

which points to a clash between science and religion. However, as mentioned in chapter 5

of this dissertation, it really points to the fact that both science and religion remain baffled.

As Mother Saint-Raphaël admits: “And yet she is a challenge to our theology, psychology,

medicine” (Hansen, 1995:149). Dan Brown (2008:171) while interviewing Hansen spells out

the ways in which Mariëtte can be interpreted: “she was a con artist, she was a self-deluded

hysteric, she was the real deal.” Hansen‟s reply was that he thought she was the real thing,

but left “room for obvious questions”. We see that the novels give expression to and explore

the supernatural and miraculous without giving a final verdict as to their truth value. Some

readers may concur with David Hume‟s vehement denial of the possibility of the miraculous

as violations of the laws of nature, while others may lean towards Richard Swinburne‟s

assessment of a miracle as a violation of a natural law by an invisible being or they may

hesitate in a liminal space between belief and unbelief. Swinburne believed that providing a

scientific explanation for a miraculous event is a matter of “showing that the event‟s cause

had powers to bring about the event (Law, 2007:147). What is important though is not the

truth value of such phenomena, but the fact that writers give heed to or satisfy a need of

postmodern people to once again interact with the miraculous, even if in a secular form.

Ian McEwan‟s Atonement deals with a fundamental Christian concept namely the possibility

of atoning for one‟s sins and subsequent redemption. Briony, like McEwan, is a non-believer

and this fact opens up a debate on whether atonement is then possible. The text shows that

a secular redemption is indeed possible even in the absence of a Deity because Briony

121

states in the novel that the attempt is enough. One has to look at McEwan‟s idea that

imagining what it is to be someone else is at the core of our humanity, although the relation

between this and religion may not have been intended. Atonement is in fact a key Christian

concept and in effect what Gianni Vattimo advocates with his caritas. Briony does not

appeal to a Deity for forgiveness, but strives through fiction to rectify her wrongs. Her

repeated drafts of Robbie and Cecilia‟s story is her albatross, her way of penance for her sin

of failing to see “the other” as important as herself. She debases herself by becoming a

nurse and caring for “the other” and thus fulfilling a very urgent requirement of Christianity –

to heed “the other”. McEwan employs metafiction and this reflects the uncertainty of any

truth claims. The postmodern is an epoch that is characterized by uncertainty about any

final truth claims and provides an array of choices between a polyphony of different voices.

This story within another story makes it nigh impossible for the reader to make a final

decision on what constitutes reality. At the end of Atonement, it is up to the reader to decide

which version of Briony‟s, or in effect McEwan‟s story, is what really happened. Even though

McEwan believes that religion is in effect a metanarrative and at that a totalitarian one, he

seems to realise that science also fails to give the final answers. In his essay “The End of

the World Blues” (2007:360) he argues that: “Scientific method, scepticism, or rationality in

general, has yet to find an overarching narrative of sufficient power, simplicity, and wide

appeal to compete with the old stories that give meaning to people‟s lives.” These “old

stories” are those we find in the Biblical narrative.

The “old stories” serve as inspiration for the non-religious writers and open debates that will

occupy our minds infinitely. Jean François‟s incredulity towards metanarratives has not

caused an abandonment of sacred themes and motifs from the contemporary novel. Those

who are sometimes most critical of the Christian metanarrative make the most compelling

cases for belief. Terry Eagleton (2006:32) in a review of Richard Dawkins‟s The God

delusion maintains that: “The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms

of it tend to be.” In other words, Dawkins‟s lack of theological knowledge makes his claims

incredible according to Eagleton. The revival of the sacred proves its resilience and the

nostalgia for the spiritual. Gianni Vattimo (1998:79) calls it a “dormant trace” and a “wound

re-opened”. The sacred and secular converge in many contemporary novels, which provide

new spaces where all voices may speak. The existence of the miraculous is always difficult

to prove, but the fact that the contemporary novel testifies to such phenomena is indicative

of a polemic that has not yet been concluded.

122

Reference list

Arnell, C.A. 2007. Wild writing: holy stigmata and the aesthetics of “sacred pain” in Ron

Hansen‟s Mariëtte in Ecstasy. Christianity and literature, 57(2):181-206.

Austen, J. 1975. Northanger Abbey. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Benedict, G. 2008. The Watson dictionary of religions and secular faiths. London: Watkins.

Best, S. & Kellner, D. 1991. Postmodern theory: critical interrogations. Houndmills:

Macmillan.

Beverly, E. 1992. What love is this? Commonweal, 119(12):26-28.

Bible. 2001. Goodnews Bible: today‟s English version. Goodwood: NBD.

Boscaljon, D. 2007. Possibilities of redemption through the novel. (In Hass, A.W., Jasper,

D. & Jay, E., eds. The Oxford handbook of English literature and theology. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. p. 760-767.)

Bradley, A. & Tate, A. 2010. The new atheist novel: fiction, philosophy polemic after 9/11.

London: Continuum.

Brown, C. 2001. The death of Christian Britain: understanding secularization, 1800 - 2000.

2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Brown, D. 2008. Conversations with American writers: the doubt, the faith, the in-between.

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.

Burke, S. 1992. The death and return of the author: criticism and subjectivity in Barthes,

Foucault and Derrida. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Castle, G. 2007. The Blackwell guide to literary theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Childs, P., ed. 2006. The fiction of Ian McEwan: a reader‟s guide to essential criticism.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cunningham, V. 1995. Canons. (In Barratt, D., Pooley, R. & Ryken, L., eds. The

discerning reader: Christian perspectives on literature and theory. Leicester: Apollos. p. 37-

52.)

Cupitt, D. 1998. Mysticism after modernity. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.

123

D‟Angelo, K. 2009. „To make a novel‟: the construction of a critical readership in Ian

McEwan‟s “Atonement.” Studies in the novel, 41(1):88-105.

D‟Hoker, E. 2006. Confession and atonement in contemporary fiction: J.M. Coetzee, John

Banville, and Ian McEwan. Critique, 48(1):31-43.

D‟Isanto, L. 1993. Theology and Gianni Vattimo‟s ontological hermeneutics. Charlottesville,

Mich.: University of Virginia. (Thesis - PhD.)

Dahms, H.F. 1992. Democracy and the post-enlightenment: Lyotard and Habermas

reappraised. International journal of politics, culture, and society, 5(3):473-509.

Dallaire, G. 2009. Mystics of the church. http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2009/

12sceptical-of-god-sceptics-of-god.html Date of access: 5 April 2013.

Dawkins, R. 2009. Interview with Ian McEwan on 2 February 2009. Channel 4 TV program:

The root of all evil. www.yotube.com/watch?v=07jriWFAEs Date of access: 17 March 2014.

Dawkins, S. 2006. The God delusion. London: Bantam Press.

De Vries, M.E. 1989. A prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving. Reformed journal, 39(7):

29-30.

Depoorte, F. 2009. Gianni Vattimo and René Girard on the uniqueness of Christianity.

Heythrop journal, 50(5):877-889.

Doctorow, E.L. 2000. City of God: a novel. London: Brown.

Eagleton, T. 2001. A beautiful and elusive tale. The Lancet, 358(9299):2177.

Eagleton, T. 2006. Lunging, flailing, mispunching. London review of books, 28(20):32-34.

Edwards, M. 1984. Towards a Christian poetics. London: Macmillan.

Eisenstein, P. 2006. On the ethics of sanctified sacrifice: John Irving‟s A prayer for Owen

Meany. Literature Interpretation theory, 17(1):1-21.

Eliot, T.S. 1966. Gerontion. (In Ricks, C., ed. Inventions of the March Hare: T. S. Eliot

Poems, 1909-1917. London: Harcourt Grace. p. 349-357.)

Eliot, T.S. 2002. Religion and literature. (In Ryken, L., ed. The Christian imagination: the

practice of faith in literature and writing. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Shaw Books. p. 197-208.)

124

Ferretter, L. 2003. Towards a Christian literary theory. New York: Macmillan.

Fiddes, P.S. 1991. Freedom and limit: a dialogue between literature and Christian doctrine.

Houndmills, Hampshire: Macmillan Press.

Finney, B. 2004. Briony‟s stand against oblivion: the making of fiction in Ian McEwan‟s

Atonement. Journal of modern literature, 27(3):68-82.

Fish, S. 1980. Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Foster, D.A. 1987. Confession and complicity in narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Gandolfo, A. 2007. Faith and fiction: Christian literature in America today. Westport, Conn.:

Praeger Publishers.

Geivett, D.R. 2005. Postmodernism and the quest for theological knowledge. (In Penner,

B., ed. Christianity and the postmodern turn: six views. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press.

p. 157-172.)

Glicksberg, C.I. 1960. Literature and religion: a study in conflict. Dallas, Tex.: Southern

Methodist University Press.

Glucklich, A. 2001. Sacred pain: hurting the body for the sake of the soul. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Guarino, T.G. 2011. The return of religion in Europe: the postmodern Christianity of Gianni

Vattimo. Logos, 14(2):15-36.

Hansen, R. 1995. Mariëtte in Ecstasy. London: Macmillan.

Hass, A. 2007. The future of English literature and theology. (In Hass, A.W., Jasper, D. &

Jay, E., eds. The Oxford handbook of English literature and theology. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. p. 841-861.)

Hawthorne, N. 1905. The scarlet letter. London: Amalgamated Press.

Haynes, S.R. 1995. Footsteps of Anne Hutchinson and Frederick Buechner: a religious

reading of John Irving‟s A prayer for Owen Meany. Religion and literature, 27(3):73-98.

125

Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward

Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hoffert, B. 1998. A prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving. Library journal, 114(5):86.

Ingraffia, B. 1995. Postmodern theory and Biblical theology. London: Cambridge University

Press.

Irving, J. 1989. A prayer for Owen Meany. London: Black Swan.

Iser, W. 1978. The act of reading: a theory of aesthetic response. London: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.

Iyer, P. 1993. Sacred and profane. Partisan review, 60(3):493-496.

Jacobi, M. 2011. Who killed Robbie and Cecilia? Reading and misreading Ian McEwan‟s

Atonement. Critique, 52(1):55-73.

Jansen, H. 2001. Laughter among the ruins: postmodern comic approaches to suffering.

New York: P. Lang.

Jasper, D. 2005. The erotic and the mystical in postmodernity. Journal of the Institute for

the Study of Christianity, Sexuality, 11(2):71-76.

Jasper, D. 2007. The study of literature and theology. (In Hass, A.W., Jasper, D. & Jay, E.,

eds. The Oxford handbook of English literature and theology. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. p. 15-32.)

Jay, E. 2007. Now and in England. (In Hass, A.W., Jasper, D. & Jay, E., eds. The Oxford

handbook of English literature and theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 3-14.)

Jeffrey, D.L. & Maillet, J.G. 2011. Christianity and literature: philosophical foundations and

critical practice. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic Press.

Kaufmann, M.W. 2007. The religious, the secular and literary studies: rethinking the

secularization narrative in histories of the profession. New literary history, 38(4):607-628.

Kazin, A.K. 1989. God‟s own little squirt. New York Times: 30-31, 12 March.

Knight, M. & Woodman, T. 2006. The word in the word: an introduction. (In Knight, M. &

Woodman, T., eds. Biblical religion and the novel, 1700-2000. Ashgate: Aldershot. p. 5.)

126

Kourie, C. & Ruthenberg, T. 2010. Contemporary Christian spirituality and postmodernism:

a fruitful conversation. Tydskrif vir Christelike Wetenskap, 46(3/4):103-121.

Lacayo, R. 2005. A day in the life. Time, 165(12):70-71.

Lachapelle, S. 2004. Between miracle and sickness: Louise Lateau and the experience of

stigmata and ecstasy. Configurations, 12(1):77-105.

Law, S. 2007. Philosophy. London: Dorfling Kindersley Limited.

Leithart, P.J. 2002. Authors, authority and the humble reader. (In Ryken, L., ed. The

Christian imagination: the practice of faith in literature and writing. Colorado Springs, Colo.:

Shaw Books. p. 209-224.)

Lèvinas, E. 1982b. The philosophers and death. Translated from French by Michael B.

Smith. (In Hayat, P., ed. 1999. Alterity and transcendence. New York: Columbia University

Press.

Lewis, P. 2010. Religious experience and the modern novel. London: Cambridge

University Press.

Lourdunathan, S. 2008. Can we speak of a postmodern Christianity? Journal of Dharma,

33(4):377-388.

Lundin, R. 1993. The culture of interpretation: Christian faith and the postmodern world.

Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.

Lyotard, J. 1984. The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge, 1924 - 1998.

Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press. (Theory and history of literature, v. 10.)

Maitland, S. 2000. Religious experience and the novel: a problem of genre and culture. (In

Fiddes, P.S., ed. The novel, spirituality and modern culture: eight novelists write about their

craft and their context. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. p. 77-96.)

Marshall, D.G. 1995. Reading and interpretive communities. (In Barratt, D., Pooley, R. &

Ryken, L., eds. The discerning reader: Christian perspectives on literature and theory.

Leicester: Apollos. p. 69-84.)

Martel, Y. 2002. Life of Pi. Edinburgh: Canongate Books.

127

Mathews, P. 2006. The impression of a deeper darkness: Ian McEwan‟s Atonement.

English studies in Canada, 32(1):147-160.

McDonough, E. 1992. Mariëtte in ecstasy by Ron Hansen. America, 166(3):66-68.

McEwan, I. 2007a. Atonement. London: Vintage Books.

McEwan, I. 2007b. End of the world blues. (In Hitchens, C., ed. The portable atheist:

essential readings for the non-believer. London: Da Capo Press. p. 361-365.)

McEwan, I. 2009. The root of all evil [Video file]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

=07jriWFAEs Date of access: 30 March 2013.

McFarlane, B. 2008. Watching, writing and control: Atonement. Screen education, 49(1):8.

Michel, A. 1997. Differentiation vs. disenchantment: the persistence of modernity from Max

Weber to Jean François Lyotard. German Studies. Review, 20(3):343-370.

Middleton, R. & Walsh, B.J. 1995. Truth is stranger than it used to be: Biblical faith in a

postmodern age. Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press.

Miller, A. 1952. The Crucible: play and study notes. London: Longman.

Miller, A. 2012. The crucible. 12th ed. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.

Nelson, S. 1995. Stewards of the imagination: Ron Hansen, Larry Woiwode and Sue Miller.

Christian century, 112(3):82-85.

Nickell, J. 1993. Looking for a miracle: weeping icons, relics, stigmata, visions and healing

cures. New York: Prometheus Books.

Nicol, B. 2009. The Cambridge introduction to postmodern fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Nietzsche, F. 1974. The gay science: with a prelude in rhymes and an appendix of songs.

New York: Vintage Books.

O‟Hara, D.K. 2011. Briony‟s being-for: metafictional narrative ethics in Ian McEwan‟s

Atonement. Critique, 52(1):74-100.

Page, P. 1995. Hero worship and hermeneutic dialectics: John Irving‟s A prayer for Owen

Meany. Mosaic: a journal for the interdisciplinary study of literature, 28(3):137-156.

128

PBS see Public Broadcasting Service

Penner, M.B. 2005. Christianity and the postmodern turn: some preliminary considerations.

(In Penner, M.B., ed. Christianity and the postmodern turn: six views. Grand Rapids, Mich.:

Brazos Press. p. 13-32.)

Picoult, J. 2008. Conversations about Keeping faith. http://www.jodipicoult.co.uk/

site/JODI/Templates/BookDetail.aspx?pageid=23. Date of access: 30 March 2013.

Picoult, J. 2008. Keeping faith. London: Hodder.

Pireddu, N. 2002. Gianni Vattimo. (In Bertens, H. & Joseph, N., eds. Postmodernism: the

key figures. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers. p. 302-309.)

Plantinga, A. 2005. On Christian scholarship. http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/

plantinga/ocs.html Date of access: 7 July 2012.

Plantinga,A. 1984. Advice to Christian philosophers. http:/www.calvin.edu/

academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/planting_alvin/ advice_to_christian_

philosophers.pdf Date of access: 7 July 2012.

Pooley, R. 1995. What does literature do? (In Barratt, D., Pooley, R. & Ryken, L., eds. The

discerning reader: Christian perspectives on literature and theory. Leicester: Apollos. p. 15-

36.)

Prescott, P.S. 1991. An innocent‟s blessing. Newsweek, 118(17):66.

Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). 2012. Interview between Ron Hansen and Bob Faw

held on 7 September. http:www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/ September-7-

2012. Date of access: 31 March 2013.

Rushdie, S. 1991. Imaginary homelands: essays and criticism, 1981-1991. London:

Granta.

Ryken, L. 1995. The Bible and literary study. (In Barratt, D., Pooley, R. & Ryken, L., eds.

The discerning reader: Christian perspectives on literature and theory. London: Apollos. p.

148-149.)

Ryken, L. 2000. Windows to the world: literature in Christian perspective. Eugene, Oreg.:

Wipf and Stock Publishers.

129

Ryken, L. 2002. Thinking Christianly about literature. (In Ryken, L., ed. The Christian

imagination: the practice of faith in literature and writing. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Shaw

Books. p. 23-34.)

Salisbury, L. 2010. Narration and neurology. Textual practice, 24(5):883-912.

Samuels, C.T. 1994. The art of fiction XLIII: John Updike. (In Plath, J., ed. Conversations

with John Updike. Jackson, Miss.: University Press of Mississippi. p. 22-45.)

Schemberg, C. 2004. Achieving „at-one-ment‟: storytelling and the concept of the self in Ian

McEwan‟s The child in time, Black dogs, Enduring love and Atonement. Frankfurt Am Mein:

Peter Lang.

Schwartz, L.S. 2002. Quests for redemption. New leader, 85(2):23-24.

Shad, J. 1995. Why wait for an angel? Thomas Pynchon‟s The crying of lot 49. (In Barratt,

D., Pooley, R. & Ryken, L., eds. The discerning reader: Christian perspectives on literature

and theory. Leicester: Apollos. p. 251-262.)

Shah, B.M. 2009. The sin of Ian McEwan‟s fictive atonement: reading his later novels. New

Blackfriars, 90(1025):38-49.

Shah, M.M. 2012. Is religion a metanarrative? Towards religious critique and appropriation

of postmodernism. International journal of humanities and religion, 1(1):24-34.

Shostak, D. 1995. Plot as repetition: John Irving‟s narrative experiments. Critique, 37(1):

51-71.

Smith, J.K.A. 2005. A little story about metanarratives. (In Penner, B., ed. Christianity and

the postmodern turn: six views. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press. p. 123-140.)

Stevenson, M. 2000. Habermas and Lyotard on truth and justice. Ontario: University of

Western Ontario. (Dissertation - MA.)

Sykes, J. 1996. Christian apologetic uses of the grotesque in John Irving and Flannery

O‟Connor. Literature and theology, 10(1):58-67.

Tate, A. 2008. Contemporary fiction and Christianity. London: Continuum.

Taylor, D. 2010. Originality and religious criticism. http://www.bc.edu/publications/

relarts/supplements/exerpts/v1taylor1.html Date of access: 14 April 2013.

130

Taylor, M.C. 1984. Erring: a postmodern a/theology. Chicago, Ill.: Chicago University

Press.

Terrell, R. 2002. Christian fiction: pity is not enough. (In Ryken, L., ed. The Christian


Books. p. 254.)

Thomson, W., Pojman, L. & Rea, M. 2008. Philosophy of religion: an anthology. 5th ed.

Belmont, Calif.: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Vattimo, G. 1988. The end of modernity. Translated from Italian by J.R. Snyder.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Vattimo, G. 1992. The human sciences and the society of communication. (In Vattimo,

G.The transparent society.Translated by David Webb. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 24-25.)

Vattimo, G. 1998. The trace of the trace. (In Derrida, J. & Vattimo, G., eds.Religion.

Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. p. 79-94.)

Vattimo, G. 1999. Belief. Translated from Italian by Luca D‟Isanto and David Webb.

Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Vattimo, G. 2002. After Christianity. Translated from Italian by Luca D‟Isanto. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Veith, G.E. Jr. 2002. Reading and writing world views. (In Ryken, L., ed. The Christian


Books. p. 117-134.)

Walters, M. 2010. The fall and the fiction writer. Christianity and literature, 60(1):113-128.

Ward, G. 2003. True religion. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Ward, G., ed. 2001. The Blackwell companion to postmodern theology. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing.

Weaver, D.J. 2011. Owen Meany as atonement figure: how he saves. Christianity and

literature, 60(4):616-634.

Wendorf, T A. 2004. Body, soul and beyond: mystical experience in Ron Hansen‟s Mariëtte

in Ecstasy and Mark Salzman‟s Lying Awake. Logos, 7(4):37-64.

131

Westphal, M. 2005. Onto-theology, metanarrative, perspectivism, and the gospel. (In

Penner, B., ed. Christianity and the postmodern turn: six views. Grand Rapids, Mich.:

Brazos Press. p. 141-156.)

Wood, J. 1999. The broken estate: essays on literature and belief. New York: Random

House.

Wright, T.R. 1988. Theology and literature. London: Basil Blackwell.

Young, J. 2010. A philosophical biography: Friedrich Nietzsche. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Young, W.P. 2007. The shack. Los Angeles, Calif.: Windblown Media.

secular space in selected postmodern novels - NWU-IR Home

Documents

Transcript of secular space in selected postmodern novels - NWU-IR Home